Was God once a man?

[alpha]

So do you think that we who think that God has always existed are serving a false or non-existent God or being?

I think you would have a really hard time finding one Mormon who would get into that "false God" nonsense. There is but one God...no matter what religion you are.

Why is it that LDS intrepret the bible only as it is presented in their view...otherwise, we others are "doing other things with scripture...even when it is pretty evident that no interpretation is necessary?

[alpha]

I was wondering how those who do not understand the concept of God having become a glorified being explain the scripture in John 8:38 & 5:19.

They don't explain anything. They reword and give us their own beliefs as if it was scripture. If their church says it....it counts and we have to pay attention. Our church doctrine doesn't count and if we say it...it is personal opinion.

OK

NOT!

[alpha]

Hi Juliann,

I didn't know Jesus was a slave, and how did Jesus look like a slave? If Morph means in context outward appearance only, then how does Jesus look like a slave? Just what does a slave look like?

Remember you said ..."Morphe does not mean more than "form, outward appearance, shape". There is nothing whatsoever in this Greek work that can carry the theological load being placed on it."

Mark

John 1;12

Jesus came as a servant...not a slave...meanings are entirely different...

Slave is owned..does things because he has to, life depends on it...

A servant lays down his life for another...desiring to please...giving of oneself.

Jesus was NOT a slave and was enslaved or belonged to no one...Not even God, Heavenly Father for the LDS.

If Jesus were a slave, the price He paid for our salvation is worthless. We are then hopeless and doomed to a life of misery and any knowledge of any "religion" is useless...and our eternity would not be known...We would then be a most miserable people, as the Bible says and I believe.

Alpha

[alpha]

I was wondering how those who do not understand the concept of God having become a glorified being explain the scripture in John 8:38 & 5:19.

Flavo..

Seems you are just reading "other things" into those verses...I don't see how you can relate your points to those verses without adding pieces to make them fit.

God did have a glorified body...When Jesus Christ was ressurrected...there you have Him. We oneness don't deny this...We know that God has a resurrected body and he is on the throne today...Jesus Christ, as King of Kings...and will remain until the holy Ghost ministers until the time of the Gentiles is completed.

Alpha

What was I reading into? The Savior said he did nothing but what he saw the Father do. Can you explain to me what was it that the Savior saw his Father do?

Hi Flavo...

John 5:17

But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he was not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

**: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.

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

:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them;even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

Where does it talk about God becoming a glorified being???

John 8:38

I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father...

John33 is the answer: to verse 32..And ye shall know the truth , and the truth shall make you free.

:33...We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I sa unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is a servant of sin.

:35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed, but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

**:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father, Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

This is not speaking of a "glorified being"

Jesus is speaking of his father being Heavenly..good, righteous....and if you do those works that He and his Father are doing then you are a child of the promise...of Abraham.

The people who sought to kill Jesus, He tells them, that they do not have the same father because they have opposed in their doings and if they were, it would be evident.Jesus was telling them that their father is the father of lies...probably Satan himself...Because we all can conclude that we can't serve two masters

Again, I have seen no "clue" as to where I would get the notion of "glorified bodies" It is totally out of context. We could other verses that could point to the glorified bodies such as: Romans 8:17, 8:30, Hebrews 5:15, ***John 7:39, 1 Peter 4:11, & 4:14

There are 49 verses that contain the word "glorified" that may or not apply to your notion...without trying to "add" a meaning into other verses.

Alpha

[flavo]

Let me see if I can break it down for you Alpha. Jesus did the works that he saw his father do. His father followed the same steps to becoming a glorified being as the Savior is now following.

Example: I have seen how my father puts up a fence. I put up a fence the same way my father has because i have seen it.

You miss the whole point of what I am trying to say. If God has always been God, how could the Savior possibly have seen the "works" of his father if his father had never experienced mortality and taught and did all the things that the Savior has done? The Savior said he only does that which he has seen the Father do. Just as he said, if you are the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.

[alpha]

Let me see if I can break it down for you Alpha. Jesus did the works that he saw his father do. His father followed the same steps to becoming a glorified being as the Savior is now following.

Example: I have seen how my father puts up a fence. I put up a fence the same way my father has because i have seen it.

You miss the whole point of what I am trying to say. If God has always been God, how could the Savior possibly have seen the "works" of his father if his father had never experienced mortality and taught and did all the things that the Savior has done? The Savior said he only does that which he has seen the Father do. Just as he said, if you are the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.

Flavo says: God has always been God, how could the Savior possibly have seen the "works" of his father if his father had never experienced mortality and taught and did all the things that the Savior has done?

Why is it so important to "think" that God was a mortal. And that we can continue the cycle? The verses you gave only imply...they are not certain of your explanation. Let me put it to you another way. We all don't have fathers or mothers to observe...many times it is pure reliance on faith that it will all go well not having to know the outcome or beforehand of things...this is what faith is...ignorance?...No, but a gift.

Christian in general do not know what their Bibles say. And many times people as you, will give a couple of verses along with an explanation as say..."see, it makes sense this way, or let let me break it to you this way." Maybe so, and you may be right in your view, but you still need to read within the context. What does the Bible say? How does it apply without going into another domain? Again there are verses that you can use to prove your points, not generalizations or implications.

Alpha

[juliann]

Jesus came as a servant...not a slave...meanings are entirely different...

Slave is owned..does things because he has to, life depends on it...

A servant lays down his life for another...desiring to please...giving of oneself.

Jesus was NOT a slave and was enslaved or belonged to no one...Not even God, Heavenly Father for the LDS.

If Jesus were a slave, the price He paid for our salvation is worthless.  We are then hopeless and doomed to a life of misery and any knowledge of any "religion" is useless...and our eternity would not be known...We would then be a most miserable people, as the Bible says and I believe.

Alpha

The word for servant and slave is the same Greek word. We tend to get a lot of translations as "servant" because it sounds nicer to us. When the Bible is going to be used as the only basis of theologizing it is critical that it at least be done in the original language.

Jesus was NOT a slave and was enslaved or belonged to no one...Not even God, Heavenly Father for the LDS.

Doesn't this make it clearer why morph was used instead of the word for image (I think image is eikon) ? He had the appearance of a slave. (Although slaves could be used as proxies for their masters, as well. I don't think it is a bad analogy myself.)

I for one believe everything that is in the Bible...and some Mormons will claim that they do as well...even though I can see that they don't

You do not believe all things in the Bible equally anymore than LDS do (or anyone else). It is impossible because there is no one theology in the Bible. It contradicts itself. It is not consistent. We could go on all day about what you don't pay attention to in the Bible. It is already apparent how much has to be added to what the authors say to make the Bible work in modern times. What you are really alluding to is your philosophy of the Bible...not that you "believe all things". That is why there are what is called fundamentalists, conservatives and liberals when it comes to Christianity.

And I know many ...thousands, who take the Bible literally and live the Christian life more so than any other "religion"...So your thought is wrong. It is too bad you won't understand. If you don't understand something, you just don't "move on"...I think LDS use the terms...line upon line...precept upon precept...well, it's the same with Bible believers. To whom much is given, much is required and this is the way God works when we receive "revelation"...or the enlightenment when one becomes more in tune with reading scripture and praying, and living a Christian life.

I don't disagree with you. But when you have a concept that is just not in the Bible...you do need to just admit it and move on. All of the line upon line in existence is not going to make something magically appear in the Bible. The early Christians did not think everything had to be in the Bible. They did not think it wrong to look to their leaders or the Lord for more wisdom. The "Bible only" philosophy is an oxymoron because the Bible itself never makes such a claim.

and Jesus "hated" religion...

Then why were his apostles organizing churches? Why did they continue to frequent the temple? This is another example of how you add to the Bible.

[Krisjhn]

Just because someone has told you that Latter-day Saints have cornered the market on 'personal revelation' does not make it true.

Even Latter-day Saints would do well to stop listening to propaganda, and pay more attention to truth, wherever it is found.

As an active LDS'er I say AMEN to this.

[Krisjhn]

I for one believe everything that is in the Bible...and some Mormons will claim that they do as well...even though I can see that they don't

This statement is fundamentally flawed. Just because you believe everything that is in the Bible does not mean you interperit correctly what is in the Bible.

Also, it does not mean what is in the Bible is infallible. If this were true then there would be no contradictions in the Bible. And if you do not believe there are contradictions and failed prophecies then you do not really know "everything" that is in the Bible.

[flavo]

Alpha,

Nothing was taken out of context. You still haven't answered the question. How did the Savior see what his Father had done? The Savior left no room for question. First of all the Jews sought to kill him because he had healed on the sabbath (John 5:16). The Savior answered that his Father "worketh hitherto" (which is up to this point) and I work (John 5:17). Then the Jews got real mad because he said God was his Father, making himself an equal (John 5:18). Then he said, "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 (John 5:19). The Savior must have seen his Father heal someone and was doing likewise. The Savior also said that the Father "sheweth him (Jesus) all things that himself (God) doeth" (John 5:20). Intersting in the last of that verse, that the Savior mentions greater works than healing the sick. Could he possibly be refering to the resurection? Lets see in verse 21 it says, "For the Father raiseth up the dead". How could the Savior know how these things are done if as he himself had said, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." How have I possibly taken anything out of context? Where have I added any meaning? It is what the scripture says. If the scriptures can prove without a doubt, why so many different denominations? You are right that faith is needed, but also a little common sense. So I still await your answer, How could the Savior say he only does what he has seen the father do, unless the father himself had done them?

[alpha]

Jesus came as a servant...not a slave...meanings are entirely different...

Slave is owned..does things because he has to, life depends on it...

A servant lays down his life for another...desiring to please...giving of oneself.

Jesus was NOT a slave and was enslaved or belonged to no one...Not even God, Heavenly Father for the LDS.

If Jesus were a slave, the price He paid for our salvation is worthless.

[alpha]

I for one believe everything that is in the Bible...and some Mormons will claim that they do as well...even though I can see that they don't

This statement is fundamentally flawed. Just because you believe everything that is in the Bible does not mean you interperit correctly what is in the Bible.

Also, it does not mean what is in the Bible is infallible. If this were true then there would be no contradictions in the Bible. And if you do not believe there are contradictions and failed prophecies then you do not really know "everything" that is in the Bible.

It is all based on faith...No originals, as I have stated previously.

Your comments are also 'fundamentally flawed"

Let the Word of God be true and every man be a lier.

Alpha

[Markk]

Hi juliann,

A slave is owned by someone, Jesus "emptied" Himself of Reputation (of His deity) and took upon Himself the form af a servant. He made himself a "bond servant", a willfull act by and of Himself. As you must know a bondservant was a person who owed a debt and to pay the dept off they willfully became a slave to pay off the debt. Thats why in context of Christs example of Humility, Christ willfully became a bond servant for man and payed our debt as propitation for our sins. So like the verse before where He was "being" in the form of God ( look up "being" and what it means with Morph and equal, it is not the usual word for being, it implys "always been" if I remember correctly) The preincarnate Christ, became by the very "essence of nature", a servant., a willfull sevant, and was made in the likeness of man, a living breathing baby human being,he had to inorder to be a sinless man, be a man, but He was still deity by nature haven only emptied Himself of His reputaion as deity.

Plus you can't ignor the other verses that cleary say that Jesus is God, His name means God with us, He's all the fullness of Deity in bodily form. He was with God and was God ( John 1:1) , which is the exact same thing as the Phil. verse is saying, and John 1:14 also is in context with the Phil. verses in that John wrote He tabranacled with us, while Paul says He came in the likness of man. And Paul says in Timothy He (Jesus) was manifested in the flesh, and he speaks of the messiahs role and ministry.

The Kenosis ( Phil. 2) is so important, so powerfull, and very clear that Jesus is God, and in perfect humility willfully became a sacrific for our sinfull nature.

Tell me in your own words what you think Phil 25-9 mean? give me a brief exogesis?

Mark

John 1:12

[Kevin Graham]

Slave, servant, bondservant, homeless guy, what's the difference? Form still means form. The context still speaks of Christ giving up glory to come to earth and then receiving his glorified form once again.

http://www.kevingraham.org/form.htm

[Markk]

Hi kevin,

Slave, servant, bondservant, homeless guy, what's the difference? Form still means form. The context still speaks of Christ giving up glory to come to earth and then receiving his glorified form once again.

If form in the context of these verses mean "form" in a wooden literial sense that you claim, then in what way did Jesus take on the form of a slave or servant? You have not addressed that with any validity. All slaves, servants, bond servants and "homeless guys" are in the exact same "form" as presidents, kings, and " every other human being. The difference between a slave owner and the slave or servant themselves, is not in a physical sense, it is in a sense beyond that, it is in the sense of the essence of who they are in attitude, role, function, and being, take there clothes off, and put them in a room and they all have the same form (likeness of man, or "fashion" of man). All humans, if healthy and physically normal are in the same form, whether slave, servant or King.

I'll take this further, from a LDS perspective, whats the difference in the Morph of God and the Morph of man? You already said in another post that "God is a man", so in your defenition what is the difference and why did Jesus have to change morph?

Mark

John 1:12

[Kevin Graham]

== If form in the context of these verses mean "form" in a wooden literial sense that you claim

The way I claim? The term is used once more in the NT and six times in the Greek septuagint. Each and every time it refers to this sense of the word "form," and never is it used to refer to "nature." Check out any lexicon to see how scholarship understands morphe. It isn't merely my claim.

== then in what way did Jesus take on the form of a slave or servant? You have not addressed that with any validity.

I have addressed it. You just refuse to read what I write I suppose.

== All slaves, servants, bond servants and "homeless guys" are in the exact same "form" as presidents, kings, and " every other human being.

If you're talking strictly of anthropomorphic form, then yes. But that isn't a limitation of the word morphe. Since Christ took the form of, not only a human, but a human servant, it is entirely appropriate to say so because it goes along with the point of the context; Christ humbled himself as a servant would and sacrificed.

The evidence that morphe can include the "nature" side of what something is, is extrabiblical and scarce, but even in these cases the physical image is never denied.

If you think about it, and you take JP Holding's alternative view by assuming morphe refers to one's

[Markk]

Hi kevin,

Does the bible teach that Jesus was God before His incarnation?

Mark

John 1;12

[Kevin Graham]

Yep.

Not according to the Trinitarian understanding of "God" of course.

[ave maria]

Yep.

Not according to the Trinitarian understanding of "God" of course.

That's a statement you should know to be false. While it might seem amusing to you to make the comment, it misinforms.

[Calm]

All he stated was that the Bible doesn't teach that Jesus was God in the way that the Trinitarians say he was God.

That is not false, but a matter of interpretation.

Personally I agree with him.

[ave maria]

All he stated was that the Bible doesn't teach that Jesus was God in the way that the Trinitarians say he was God.

That is not false, but a matter of interpretation.

Personally I agree with him.

You'll have to explain and elaborate, then, cal.

[Calm]

Actually I don't. Pointing out that you are wrong in your assessment of what Kevin stated doesn't require me to then explain in further detail what Kevin meant by his statement. If you don't get the relatively simple idea of it, then I suggest you ask Kevin.

[ave maria]

Not interested. Just didn't think it was appropriate for you to call him a liar or an idiot.

If I misunderstood, I apologize. But it's still not clear to me that that's the case, and clarification would be helpful.

[Calm]

Good for the apology, but still see above.

[Markk]

Hi Kevin,

Then Phil. 2 is in context with John 1:1,14 that God became flesh.

What does the Greek word "being" imply with Morphe?

If you're talking strictly of anthropomorphic form, then yes. But that isn't a limitation of the word morphe. Since Christ took the form of, not only a human, but a human servant, it is entirely appropriate to say so because it goes along with the point of the context; Christ humbled himself as a servant would and sacrificed.

These verse does not say that Jesus took the form of a human, it says that He came in the "likeness" of man, see homoioma. Unlike morphe which implys the essence of a persons nature and unchanging character, Paul use homoioma which means resemblance, not a exact form as morpe means, morpe could not be used there because it implys a unchanging character of someting...it's nature. On the other hand morphe was used the other two times because because it denotes His unchanging character as God and His desire to become in the fashion (kind, human) of man to die for our sin's. Jesus is fully God and fully man. In other words Morphe means Jesus is exactly God, and "willfully" is exactly man.

I have addressed it. You just refuse to read what I write I suppose.

I read it but your answer is impossible in that Jesus became a servant as soon as he became in the likeness of men, the context of the sentece does not allow for Christ to be a slave only because he was beaten, your just making that up.

The evidence that morphe can include the "nature" side of what something is, is extrabiblical and scarce, but even in these cases the physical image is never denied.

Your starting to get it. I never said the physical image is denied, Morphe implys that nothing could be in the form or being of God that was not God.like Col. 1, Christ is the exact image of God, all his Fullness in bodily form ( Col 2:9), and God with us.

== The difference between a slave owner and the slave or servant themselves, is not in a physical sense

But that isn't the contrast now is it? It is contrasting the form of the glory of God with a human servant.

Yes it is according to you guys, to me no, to me it shows that Jesus was the exact essence and nature of God, was/is equal to God, and emptied this by reputaion to die for us as a servant in the likeness of man.

You guys (julie)have said that Morphe means form as in the shape of something, so if your going to hold to that, then you MUST explain what he shape of a servant and slave is. Unless you mean something less than physical shape If you believe different than julie I missed it?

== it is in a sense beyond that, it is in the sense of the essence of who they are in attitude, role, function, and being, take there clothes off, and put them in a room and they all have the same form (likeness of man, or "fashion" of man). All humans, if healthy and physically normal are in the same form, whether slave, servant or King.

Ok I guess this means you take Holdng's approach with the "activity and attitude" interpretation. So where does that leave Christ? As a mere human who became God by simply mimicking God's attitude. Nice going. That means anyone can become God in the same sense as Christ, by merely mimicking him.

No I take the view i hav ebeen saying all along, your putting words into my mouth I never said. Jesus was by very nature God who emptied this and willfully became a sinless man for us. I have backe dtha up with many other verses which you have not attemped to address.

Mark

John 1;12