Is Jesus G-d in the flesh (Lattelady)

[Traveler]

Often I hear doctrine that I cannot find in scripture. There are two doctrines that have evolved in the much of the landscape of modern Christianity.

One is that Jesus was fully man and fully G-d.

The second is that Jesus is G-d in the flesh.

I have researched these ideas and found no reference in scripture but I have found what was called a heresy in early Christianity that was attributed to a man called Nestor. He did not initiate the Nestorian Christian movement in the East but that label has been given to the vast numbers of Asian Christians disconnected from Traditional Western Christianity. In essence he asked a question concerning the scripture where Mary was identified as the “mother of our L-rd”. Paraphrasing he asked, if Mary provided (was the mother of) that which was flesh, mortal and man of Jesus and that which is L-rd and G-d in Jesus existed prior to Mary – How is it that she is the mother that which already is? How is Mary the mother of our “L-rd”?

It appears to me that to create rhetorical logic to circumvent scripture and to be able to explain the “Nestorian” question the above two doctrines were created in support of Trinity doctrine. Not from scripture but to avoid what really is in scripture.

If there are scriptures specific to these doctrines I would really like to see how these scriptures are being used and interpreted. I suspect that a great amount of “liberty” has been assumed in scripture to justify these doctrines.

If anyone would like to weigh in on this question or discuss this in more depth – Please, I would like to consider your thoughts and why you have come to the conclusion you have.

The Traveler

[lattelady]

Traveler,

One scripture that is both Bible AND the Book of Mormon, on the subject of Jesus being God in the flesh, is Isaiah 9:6:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

You can find this verse in 2 Nephi 19:6 as well. The verse is in reference to Jesus, and calls Him "The Mighty God, Everlasting Father." This is because He is God! He was born in flesh on this earth, and was God and man.

Matthew 1:22-23 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the LORD by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Jude 1:24-25 "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise GOD OUR SAVIOUR, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."

1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up inot glory."

2 Nephi 11:7 "For if there be no Christ there be not God; and if there be not God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time."

2 Nephi 26:12 "And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God."

Mosiah 15:1-4 "And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son: the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son; And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth."

Edited November 14, 2009 by lattelady

[Dravin]

One thing to consider Lattelady is from an LDS perspective Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ can both be called God, so scripture referring to Jehovah or Jesus Christ as God is not de facto evidence that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father are the same being (I think that is what is being talked about, I could be wrong though) because the title can be applied to both of them. As for references that refer to Christ as Father, you might find this interesting: LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Father and the Son.

I wouldn't bring up the LDS perspective so much, as it doesn't really impact how you interpret the Bible and the thread is about what you think, but you quoted the Book of Mormon. I'm pointing out the LDS perspective not as some sort of proof that you interpretation is unreasonable, just providing some insight into where Traveler may be coming from.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Dravin

[Moksha]

Traveler as I understand it, the majority of Christianity went with the idea of Jesus being both fully Man and fully God, immutable and inseparable, at the Chalcedon Council.

Of course we have a different understanding.

[lattelady]

Dravin,

If, from an LDS perspective, both Jesus and Heavenly Father can be called God, wouldn't you then be conceding that Jesus is God and Heavenly Father is God? My purpose in including references in the B.o.M. was to show exactly what you're stating--even LDS scripture seems to agree with the deity of Jesus, in the flesh.

[Traveler]

Traveler,

One scripture that is both Bible AND the Book of Mormon, on the subject of Jesus being God in the flesh, is Isaiah 9:6:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

You can find this verse in 2 Nephi 19:6 as well. The verse is in reference to Jesus, and calls Him "The Mighty God, Everlasting Father." This is because He is God! He was born in flesh on this earth, and was God and man.

Matthew 1:22-23 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the LORD by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Jude 1:24-25 "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise GOD OUR SAVIOUR, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."

1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up inot glory."

2 Nephi 11:7 "For if there be no Christ there be not God; and if there be not God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time."

2 Nephi 26:12 "And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God."

Mosiah 15:1-4 "And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son: the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son; And they are on God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth."

One thing that amazes me is when someone stands at noon on a clear day with the sun shining brightly and declares that it is night. If Jesus had a bellybutton then it means that G-d has a bellybutton. It is sad that so much has been lost (apostasy and heresy) form ancient concepts. Anciently the concept was not given the label of bellybutton you will not find any such term in scripture. It was given another name. Interesting to, is that the ancient concept of “bellybutton” also had ties into such concepts as salvation and wholeness and holy.

But there is no reason to cast such pearls before someone that has no care or use for such things and does not seek them. Jesus in flesh was “The Son of Man” – Which all points to a “connection” that is “lost”.

The Traveler

[mnn727]

Did you forget to put on your glasses?

[lattelady]

Who are you referring that question to, mnn727?

[lattelady]

Traveler,

I'm assuming that I would be the swine you're referring to casting pearls before...that's okay. :) I've been called worse. :) The interesting thing about that is...you asked a question, calling me out by name in the title of your thread. I must admit I was a bit suprised by that, but if you ask me a question, the odds are I am going to answer it to the best of my ability. My beliefs are no less important to me than yours are to you. I stand by my beliefs in the deity of Christ as firmly and strongly as you stand by a different belief. If you are frustrated because I am not seeing your way of thinking, try not to be. My faith is firm, as is yours. What is it about me that so irritates you?

I also noticed that, even though you asked for scriptures which would support the doctrine in question, I gave some and you had no comment on them. I hoped that you might shed light on how YOU would interpret those scriptures.

Edited November 14, 2009 by lattelady
adding a thought

[Dravin]

Dravin,

If, from an LDS perspective, both Jesus and Heavenly Father can be called God, wouldn't you then be conceding that Jesus is God and Heavenly Father is God? My purpose in including references in the B.o.M. was to show exactly what you're stating--even LDS scripture seems to agree with the deity of Jesus, in the flesh.

Oh I agree that semantically one can say that, I think though that there are meanings in the phrase beyond the semantics that is what Traveler is discussing. Meanings I'm not sure I understand. If we say that then we say that God has/had a body of flesh and bones, it might be considered true in a sense for many Christians but that isn't what those words are conjuring. So if I asked them out of the blue, "Does God have a body?" I think a lot of Christians would disagree, so semantics isn't everything. Just because the scriptures say something doesn't mean it means any particular parsing of those words we might assign it. I think we had a discussion about that a while back about just who has fallen short of the glory of God.

So I'll agree with you that Jesus (who can rightfully be called God, and is referred to as such in the scriptures) was in the flesh. If when you say that you mean that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father are the same being then we disagree. One of those meanings lurking about that I'm not sure is actually lurking about, but there you have it. Likewise if you assign other implications and meanings to that phrase I may or may not agree with them. It's like how we can both agree that the scriptures say, "faith without works is dead" but disagree on just what the implications of that statement are.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Dravin

[HillCumorahCC]

It is rather mean-spirited to address a question to a specific person and when they give reasonable answer to call them out as swine who are unable to see the truth.

Lattelady... you gave an excellent answer, and I particularly enjoyed how you used the Book of Mormon in your response. I would add that the Title Page also includes the statement as to the purpose of the Book of Mormon, "to show unto the Jews and the Gentiles that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting Himself unto all the world".

[Maureen]

Often I hear doctrine that I cannot find in scripture. There are two doctrines that have evolved in the much of the landscape of modern Christianity.

One is that Jesus was fully man and fully G-d.

The second is that Jesus is G-d in the flesh.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

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

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not....

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1)

M.

[Moksha]

Isaiah 9:6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

You can find this verse in 2 Nephi 19:6 as well. The verse is in reference to Jesus, and calls Him "The Mighty God, Everlasting Father." This is because He is God! He was born in flesh on this earth, and was God and man.

But these works were written before the introduction of polygamy theology.

[Traveler]

It is rather mean-spirited to address a question to a specific person and when they give reasonable answer to call them out as swine who are unable to see the truth.

Lattelady... you gave an excellent answer, and I particularly enjoyed how you used the Book of Mormon in your response. I would add that the Title Page also includes the statement as to the purpose of the Book of Mormon, "to show unto the Jews and the Gentiles that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting Himself unto all the world".

I am trying to understand why Lattelady said that G-d is a spirit - and what she meant by that and then why she vaulted from that doctrine to declare that Jesus is G-d in the flesh. In particular, why Mary is the mother of our L-rd if all that is "G-d" in Jesus was determined before Mary even existed?

I do not think Lattelady answered the question but avoided it. In a discussion in another thread I was criticized by Lattelady for suggesting G-d has a bellybutton because according to her, G-d is spirit. My point is that – if Jesus is G-d in the flesh and if Jesus has a bellybutton (to which I think we all agree?) – Then G-d has a bellybutton and G-d is not spirit only.

I am sorry that, to many, truth is mean spirited. But to be honest I can better handle being called mean spirited than to use such thinking as an excuse to avoid the truth – especially truth about G-d.

There are many problems with the rhetorical logic being expressed about G-d I would like to explorer but to quote a movie – it appears that some cannot handle the truth.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

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

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not....

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1)

M.

This make perfect sense to me but it is contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity. We understand that all that is the Word and is Jesus Christ became flesh but to many (Trinitarians) not all that is G-d became flesh - This may seem like a minor point but in the question of "Nestor" and the meaning of Mary being the mother of our L-rd - this is logic to prove the Trinity wrong. Not by my saying so but by those that laid the foundation for the Trinitarian doctrine.

The Traveler

[Maureen]

This make perfect sense to me but it is contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity.

All I can conclude is that you don't understand the Trinity doctrine.

We understand that all that is the Word and is Jesus Christ became flesh but to many (Trinitarians) not all that is G-d became flesh -

I do not understand what you are trying to say here.

M.

[lattelady]

Traveler...I'm a bit lost. I will keep seeking to have conversations with you about doctrine or theology as long as you are interested, but I desire an EQUAL exchange. You've made it very clear that keeping the commandments is of utmost importance to you. I respect that. I will speak honestly with you and suggest that the way you are choosing to communicate with me on this forum is not kind, not patient or gracious. You've quoted many times that it is priority #1 to love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. I would ask you to try to have a conversation with me that is rooted in the love of Christ--and I will do the same for you. Otherwise, it would be better not to seek conversation with me at all--it is not profitable as it is now.

In your last post to me, you made an accusation that I criticized you in the "Bellybutton" thread. I did no such thing. If you go back and look at the exchange, I simply wrote an answer to your post to me. I have sought to respond to you honestly, but considerately. Please don't accuse me of something I did not do, especially in a public forum.

You continue not to speak about the scriptures I quoted, that YOU actually asked for. You even accused me of NOT answering your question but "avoiding it." I did no such thing. I answered it head-on with scripture for you to examine and discuss with me. But you're not interested in that, are you? I'm beginning to wonder if your posts are written for the purpose of belittling ME SPECIFICALLY, even though you typically use general terms.

I want you to know that I'm not avoiding the truth about God. I've examined it and studied it all my life. There are things about God that I do not understand, yes, even things that at times I may feel are unfair (in my human-ness). But I have a deep, profound love for Him. He is more precious to me than anything in this whole world. If you feel that I am avoiding the truth that He desires for me to obey Him and keep His commandments, I am not. I believe that wholeheartedly, and seek, with His divine help to obey Him. But I stand by the truth that He does not love me any more than He does RIGHT NOW, even if I do a thousand good deeds for Him. And He does not love me any LESS than He does RIGHT now, even if I fail Him. His love is the same yesterday, today and FOREVER!

[ozzy]

I may be misunderstanding the issue at hand, but according to how I am reading it, this is how I respond.

God the Father and God the Son are separate and distinct. Both are beings of flesh. God the Holy Ghost is the only one that exists as a spirit. That these are all separate is manifest in such scriptures as:

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved cSon, in whom I am well pleased.

(New Testament | Matthew 3:16 - 17)

Here we see Christ is baptised and that The Holy Spirit comes to him, and that the Father testifies of him.

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

(New Testament | Acts 7:56)

Here Stephen sees the Father and Christ individually. Or God is beside himself (pun intended)

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath acommitted all bjudgment unto the Son:

(New Testament | John 5:22)

Here we see that Christ will judge us because the Father will allow it.

My point with the above three scriptures is that the Father and the Son are not separate manifestations of the same individual but are distinct and interact the same way a father on earth interacts with his son. The reason that Christ is God as well is because like a father and son on earth, the Son is able to become like the Father. Thus they both exist as individual God's.

To further explain my point I would like to use one more reference.

16 But, exerting all my powers to acall upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into bdespair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of clight exactly over my head, above the brightness of the dsun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I bsaw two cPersonages, whose brightness and dglory defy all description, estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My fBeloved gSon. Hear Him!

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:16 - 17)

as well as

25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two aPersonages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was bhated and cpersecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me dfalsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not edeny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:25)

Joseph Smith, the prophet of the restoration saw God and Jesus individually and again the Father even bore witness of the Son.

So to sum up my answer, no the Father is not God in the Spirit but, like Christ, is God in the Flesh. Or rather, Christ is God in the Flesh like the Father.