Significance of "Only Begotten"


Seminarysnoozer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why did Jesus have to be a "Begotten Son in the flesh"? Being His spiritual Firstborn Son is not enough?

The "Sunday school" answer is something along the lines of Him being the only perfect, sinless man on earth or that He is the Firstborn. A deeper response might be that being a Begotten son would give him the ability to lay down His perfect life to pay for our sins and to overcome death or to even perform the miracles He did in this world. And another response would be to simply reveal God's nature. One could also say, the Savior had to be Begotten because it was prophesied that way and one could provide numerous scriptures to that regard but that doesn't explain 'why'. (*I am also not discussing how it was done, that would be for a different thread. And I am assuming the traditional LDS belief that Jesus is the literal Only Begotten in the flesh.)

There are a couple questions this brings up, if that is what we believe. What is it about being the literal half-offspring of God in the flesh that allows Him to have otherwise lived an immortal life if He didn't sacrifice it for us? Do we not have examples of others who are walking the Earth in bodies that will not die but later given up and become resurrected? And why does this have to be done by being the literal offspring of God in the flesh? Why could it not be that Christ simply be given a perfect body to sacrifice later, why does it have to be an Only Begotten (that is really just a half begotten) body? If we say there is added value to being the literal Begotten Son of God in the flesh than it speaks to the idea that our greatness here on Earth is at least partly determined by the type of body we have. And not only having a certain type of body but one made up of a certain lineage.

To make that body "perfect" does it have to be Begotten? If the answer is 'yes' than that would imply our perfected bodies after this life will all have to be Begotten of the Father. If the answer is 'no' then what really is the value of Jesus being literally Begotten of the Father in this life?

The other category of questions comes from the idea that Jesus' body had to be Begotten to be able to overcome death. If we say that is the case then we are also saying that that is where the power to overcome death comes from, the body, at least in part. I've always considered Christ's ability to overcome death a function of his Priesthood power. If it was the Priesthood power alone than would it really matter what body Christ was born into, other than it being perfect? And if a perfect, flawless body was needed to overcome death, He would have to change that body to a mortal one to allow for death. If it was changed, or given up to become mortal at the cross or in the garden, then wouldn't He have also lost the ability to overcome death if it was from that perfect body? Was Jesus healing power and miracles a function of the Priesthood power alone or from the Godly body He had while on the Earth?

Even just believing that a perfect, flawless body alone was needed for the sacrifice of the savior, why did that sacrificial body have to given by being "Begotten"? If one says, that is the only way to make a flawless, perfect body, then we would have to say that Adam and Eve's bodies were made the same way, which we know is not true because Jesus is the only Begotten. So we know there are other ways of making a perfect, flawless body. So, what is the significance, why did it have to be that Jesus is the literal Only Begotten Son in the flesh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It seems to me there is a lot of assumptions that He had a perfect body, or that a perfect body was necessary. I don't believe it was a body "without blemish" that was important. It was the sinless state that was the sacrifice without blemish.

That is exactly what raises the question of why He had to be Begotten. What added significance does that have beyond His spiritual authority and power that added to His role here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was His spiritual condition that had to be perfect, not His body. I believe He was given the power over death as part of His particular probation, so He would have the option of using it, yet prove spiritually perfect by not using it.

So, then what do you think is the significance of Him having to be a Begotten Son in the flesh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To have power to stay death while going through Gethsemane, and to have power to "have power to take it again" (John 10:18) - to be resurrected.

Where did you come to the conclusion that His ability to resurrect was a function of His Priesthood power, rather than inherent powers of His being? I had never heard that before. I had always heard the power to resurrect Himself being a function of His being the only begotten of the Father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every spirit child of Heavenly Father that makes it to their second estate needs to be tested and tried on this earth. Just because Jesus was the first begotten spirit child does not make him exempt to this. He needed to come down and gain a body and go through the trials of life as well. From some of the things he said in the Bible I come to the conclusion that he is following the example that Heavenly Father set, meaning he came down and gained a body and went through life, because it is something that Heavenly Father did as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anciently the term “begotten” had meaning that is somewhat lost in modern thinking. Under ancient Suzerain law all “Begotten” sons were direct heirs of the Suzerain. The reason that Jesus was the begotten of the Father (Suzerain) was so that he could atone for the fall and fallen mankind. This means that Jesus was not subject to the fall because a fallen being cannot atone for sins.

Had Jesus sinned then he would have fallen and become “subject” with us to the Devil. This created a rather interesting situation. Because he is the “First Born” Lucifer or Satan was subject to him but if Jesus had fallen (sinned) then he would have become subject to Satan. When Jesus spoke the words, “Get thee behind me Satan”. He had the power to command Satan – something man does not have without the priesthood of Christ. This fulfilled the prophesy that a descendent of Adam and Eve would have power to crush the head of the serpent (Satan being the symbolic head) though the serpent would have poser to burse his heal – meaning power to tempt and torment even the Christ.

TheTraveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anciently the term “begotten” had meaning that is somewhat lost in modern thinking. Under ancient Suzerain law all “Begotten” sons were direct heirs of the Suzerain. The reason that Jesus was the begotten of the Father (Suzerain) was so that he could atone for the fall and fallen mankind. This means that Jesus was not subject to the fall because a fallen being cannot atone for sins.

Had Jesus sinned then he would have fallen and become “subject” with us to the Devil. This created a rather interesting situation. Because he is the “First Born” Lucifer or Satan was subject to him but if Jesus had fallen (sinned) then he would have become subject to Satan. When Jesus spoke the words, “Get thee behind me Satan”. He had the power to command Satan – something man does not have without the priesthood of Christ. This fulfilled the prophesy that a descendent of Adam and Eve would have power to crush the head of the serpent (Satan being the symbolic head) though the serpent would have poser to burse his heal – meaning power to tempt and torment even the Christ.

TheTraveler

Thanks for your response. I would appreciate some clearing up of what you said. It seems the first paragraph you are saying Jesus was not subject to the fall because He was begotten and the second paragraph He was not subject to the fall because He did not sin. Are you trying to say that because He was begotten He did not sin? That sounds like you are explaining how Jesus doesn't fall into any 'original sin' category. Is that what you are saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To have power to stay death while going through Gethsemane, and to have power to "have power to take it again" (John 10:18) - to be resurrected.

Where did you come to the conclusion that His ability to resurrect was a function of His Priesthood power, rather than inherent powers of His being? I had never heard that before. I had always heard the power to resurrect Himself being a function of His being the only begotten of the Father.

I am not sure how you could separate the two things, the power of His priesthood and the power of His being, aren't they the same thing? The power of resurrection is through having the keys of the power of resurrection which is done through priesthood power as all actions of God that bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Jesus, of course, acting in God's name, He didn't do it for Himself or of Himself.

Russell M. Nelson said; "This great priesthood power of resurrection is vested in the Lord of this world. He taught that “all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18)."

President Kimball said; "President Brigham Young, the second president of this dispensation, said: “It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and exaltation, and that we are administering in those ordinances. This is not the case. We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would like to ask what they are. I will mention one. We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of resurrection.” (Journal of Discourses, 15:137.)

Do we have the keys of resurrection? Could you return to the earth as ones who would never again die—your own parents, your grandparents, your ancestors? I buried my mother when I was eleven, my father when I was in my early twenties. I have missed my parents much. If I had the power of resurrection as did the Savior of the world, I would have been tempted to try to have kept them longer. I have been called to speak in numerous funerals for people whom I have known, people whom I have loved, and people whom I have saved and held on to in a limited way. We do not know of anyone who can resurrect the dead as did Jesus the Christ when he came back to mortality.

“[The keys] will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again. … They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism then receive the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here [on the earth], and there are many more.” (JD, 15:137.) "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, then what do you think is the significance of Him having to be a Begotten Son in the flesh?

I personally believe you may be reading more into the title then intended in the scripture. For me He is the Only Begotten of the Father because, well, He is the ONLY Begotten of the Father. I don't see a spiritual mystery behind it.

Maybe I am not understanding your question correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally believe you may be reading more into the title then intended in the scripture. For me He is the Only Begotten of the Father because, well, He is the ONLY Begotten of the Father. I don't see a spiritual mystery behind it.

Maybe I am not understanding your question correctly?

You have suggested, and I agree, that His power and ability are mostly from His righteousness and being sinless. Then what would change from a Savior that was born of two earthly parents as opposed to being Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh?

By understanding the purpose of God needing to give Jesus a set of His genes to be literally Begotten of the Father in the flesh then we would also outline the value of having a perfected body. At least we may have a glimpse of what the added value of the physical body is beyond our spiritual being. There are many that would call the body simply a covering for the spirit but if that were the case, why couldn't Jesus be begotten from any 2 earthly parents?

In other words, what is the significance or value gained by Jesus being the "Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh"?

If one answers that by saying it gave Him the power to overcome death then that is suggesting that the power to overcome death also comes with having a certain set of genes, at least in part. That also reinforces the idea that God could not be omnipotent without also having a certain set of genes. And it would suggest that our non-Begotten bodies limits our power and ability. Is that what we believe? .... just pondering the importance of the "Only Begotten" requirement for the Savior's role, separating that fact from His righteousness, spirituality, His Firstborn status in the pre-existence etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seminary, I don't know if you've thought about this, but if you have just ignore me; if you haven't, then it might be a small piece that might help.

Genesis 3:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Moses 4:

21 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed; and he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

(I underlined the differences)

He is speaking to Lucifer, but He references Eve's seed and not Adam's.

The bolded "he" from Moses is clearly referring to His Only Begotten Son. The Bible renders the term "it" instead of he making it more general, where it may be taken as all of Eve's seed. This is interesting since Mary was just as much Adam's seed as Eve's. I believe this is a word-play here meaning that Christ would be born of a mortal woman and Immortal Father.

I know that doesn't change anything. I see this as part of the plan. For unrevealed reasons the One who would redeem man had to have an immortal father. Although I believe I know why it had to be the father that was immortal and not the mother (I will not say why because it will give some another reason to roll their eyes and comment how I speculate too much), I don't have an explanation as to why one or the other had to be immortal, other than the popular reasons that have been mentioned.

I do love this topic, though, and thank you for starting it. I'll be watching it with genuine curiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While resurrection is a priesthood ordinance, Jesus could not perform an ordinance on Himself...

for example:

He did not baptize Himself, He did not give Himself the priesthood

One of the reasons He was begotten was because He would then not be limited by the 'ye shall surely die' curse that was put on Adam. He could then be resurrected by Himself. He did not have to redeem Himself from the fall.

This is explained in Jesus the Christ written by James E. Talmage..."begotten by an immortal Sire He possessed as a heritage the power to withstand death indefinitely" (p. 21)

John 10:17-18 "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again"

John 5:26 "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seminary, I don't know if you've thought about this, but if you have just ignore me; if you haven't, then it might be a small piece that might help.

Genesis 3:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Moses 4:

21 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed; and he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

(I underlined the differences)

He is speaking to Lucifer, but He references Eve's seed and not Adam's.

The bolded "he" from Moses is clearly referring to His Only Begotten Son. The Bible renders the term "it" instead of he making it more general, where it may be taken as all of Eve's seed. This is interesting since Mary was just as much Adam's seed as Eve's. I believe this is a word-play here meaning that Christ would be born of a mortal woman and Immortal Father.

I know that doesn't change anything. I see this as part of the plan. For unrevealed reasons the One who would redeem man had to have an immortal father. Although I believe I know why it had to be the father that was immortal and not the mother (I will not say why because it will give some another reason to roll their eyes and comment how I speculate too much), I don't have an explanation as to why one or the other had to be immortal, other than the popular reasons that have been mentioned.

I do love this topic, though, and thank you for starting it. I'll be watching it with genuine curiosity.

Thanks. I find the whole concept of "seed" and lineage and "out of the loins" confusing and interesting. It is a big part of our covenant culture and yet few people, at least that I know personally, in church have any real concept of what it means.

There are many examples in the scriptures where a certain "seed" had to be continued. And I speculate there is more importance to genetic links than is given in our current understanding and gospel. I think it is often passed over that after Able was killed he was replaced with a look-alike, Seth. And that Abraham wouldn't settle for a son that didn't look like him, Ishmael (Unless one is Arabic, I suppose). And as it says in Genesis 26 :4 "And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed", why is it a 'blessing' to Abraham if his seed is a 'blessing' to the rest of the world? Why is that a promise that has any value to Abraham? that seems a little strange. Just like the promises given to Eve that you gave. Why does Eve care that of her seed comes the Savior? There is some value to Eve to know that it is her genes being used in the future? Out of her seed comes a lot of evil people too.

I find the link between Priesthood and not only lineage but "likeness" interesting and that there is a value to preserve that likeness. D and C 107: " 41 This order was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage in the following manner:

42 From Adam to Seth, who was ordained by Adam at the age of sixty-nine years, and was blessed by him three years previous to his (Adam’s) death, and received the promise of God by his father, that his posterity should be the chosen of the Lord, and that they should be preserved unto the end of the earth;

43 Because he (Seth) was a perfect man, and his likeness was the express likeness of his father, insomuch that he seemed to be like unto his father in all things, and could be distinguished from him only by his age."

Seems like that is always passed over like it is something cute, 'oh isn't that cute that Seth looked like Adam.' Or is there some important message of the power of the priesthood being linked to a certain set of genes, like the genes received by the Savior to make Him look like His father or even the importance of Joseph Smith getting similar genes to Joseph of Egypt. I tend to think this isn't just coincidence or a cute description of the lineage but we probably aren't ready to understand all of that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While resurrection is a priesthood ordinance, Jesus could not perform an ordinance on Himself...

for example:

He did not baptize Himself, He did not give Himself the priesthood

One of the reasons He was begotten was because He would then not be limited by the 'ye shall surely die' curse that was put on Adam. He could then be resurrected by Himself. He did not have to redeem Himself from the fall.

This is explained in Jesus the Christ written by James E. Talmage..."begotten by an immortal Sire He possessed as a heritage the power to withstand death indefinitely" (p. 21)

John 10:17-18 "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again"

John 5:26 "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself"

Thanks, this is the point of this thread. That there is power that exists as a "heritage" obtained from His birth, in other words genes, that allowed him to withstand death indefinitely. Is that what Talmage is saying?

Two things; So the curse of Adam is not there if you only get it from one parent? It is a two parent curse?

and ... at the top you said resurrection is a priesthood ordinance but could not be performed on self, then who performed it on Jesus? Or are you just showing that for Jesus it was not a priesthood ordinance that it was just natural to His being. I think this is the same kind of argument about the need for Jesus to be baptized as what sins are being washed? As a perfect being He is simply showing the way but still the power to do it has to come from somewhere and if it is from God as you suggest by John 5:26 then we know that power is the priesthood as the priesthood is the power by which He brings to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, this is the point of this thread. That there is power that exists as a "heritage" obtained from His birth, in other words genes, that allowed him to withstand death indefinitely. Is that what Talmage is saying? ]

Yes, though he does not use the word 'genes'.

Two things; So the curse of Adam is not there if you only get it from one parent? It is a two parent curse?.

Talmage wrote on p. 18 "Adam realized the disparity that had been brought between him and his companion, and with some measure of understanding followed her course..." then quotes Paul "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" 1 Tim. 2:14, also 2 Cor. 11:3

He further explains on p 19 that by man, Adam, was death brought, and by man, Jesus Christ, shall all be made alive. He quotes Paul again "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" 1 Cor. 15:21,22

Being son of a woman gave Him the knowledge of good and evil, in His physical state after passing through the veil, and also being Son of God gave Him the ability to lay down and take up life, at will. The best of both worlds.

and ... at the top you said resurrection is a priesthood ordinance but could not be performed on self, then who performed it on Jesus? Or are you just showing that for Jesus it was not a priesthood ordinance that it was just natural to His being. I think this is the same kind of argument about the need for Jesus to be baptized as what sins are being washed? As a perfect being He is simply showing the way but still the power to do it has to come from somewhere and if it is from God as you suggest by John 5:26 then we know that power is the priesthood as the priesthood is the power by which He brings to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man.

For Jesus, who gave us an example of priesthood ordinances not being performed on oneself,

His resurrection was not an ordinance for Him.

But ours will be similar to it, being done as an ordinance through the power of the priesthood, and not under our own power.

John 5:

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall *hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

After Jesus was resurrected, there were people who came out of their graves in their immortal forms (Matt. 27:52-53), through His priesthood power, and we will too.

*By His mouth, or by the mouth of His servants, it is the same.

Edited by jayanna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, though he does not use the word 'genes'.

Being son of a woman gave Him the knowledge of good and evil, in His physical state after passing through the veil, and also being Son of God gave Him the ability to lay down and take up life, at will. The best of both worlds.

Of course, Talmage who died in 1933, I wouldn't expect to use the word 'genes'.

I think you are unique in your quick separation of Jesus' power to lay down and take up His life as being a power associated with Him being a temporal Son of God (unlike the rest of us that are just spiritual children of God). I think most in the church would say His ability to take up His body is related to His spiritual prowess. But, that is exactly why I raise the question. You seem to have a firm testimony that it is the body itself that gave Jesus that ability. I am pondering that possibility, that's why I bring it up. Thanks for your input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or that Jesus looked like, or was the express image of, the Father...

Yep, I have always found "seed" interesting.

A while back (years ago), I learned the real difference between a fruit and vegetable (I thought I knew, but I didn't). Oddly enough, I learned it in the scriptures. Understanding that difference really opened my eyes to "seed" and what significance(s) it might hold. I'll just touch the surface of it here.

God told Adam that he was to "till the ground by the sweat of his brow." He taught him how to use seeds. I believe there is a simple, yet significant, symbol in how seeds work. When you plant them, and nurture them, they grow to be like, or the express image of, what the seed came out of.

Christ used seeds in a parable to depict the word of God.

Christ was compared to the firstfruits of those who slept.

Yes, I'm with you. There is a deep and meaninful significance to the use of "seed" in the scriptures.

Simply, one of the symbols serves as a means to teach us that we are "of God," or His children.

Moses 5:

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

If you think about the 3 things seeds are, or are compared to in the scriptures, it makes it a little more clear.

1. seeds in fruit

2. seeds are the word of God

3. seed is offspring

In order for us to have children we needed the knowledge of how to do so, food to keep them alive physically, and the gospel (or word of God) to keep them alive spiritually.

Eve wasn't so dumb afterall. :)

One of the obvious significances of teaching man to "till the ground" was to show him that he is a child of God (taken from the dust of the earth). Another was to teach him about offspring in general, and how reproduction occurs. I don't think the knowledge of how to procreate came magically by partaking of the fruit, but it set the conditions where he could understand it and be taught. :)

And, oddly enough, the 2 trees placed in the Garden were fruit trees (tree of life included).

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response. I would appreciate some clearing up of what you said. It seems the first paragraph you are saying Jesus was not subject to the fall because He was begotten and the second paragraph He was not subject to the fall because He did not sin. Are you trying to say that because He was begotten He did not sin? That sounds like you are explaining how Jesus doesn't fall into any 'original sin' category. Is that what you are saying?

You and I are fallen and cannot atone for our sins. We are fallen because we are sons and daughters of Adan and Eve that partook of the fruit. We are mortal and are subject to death and cannot overcome death.

Jesus was not fallen while he was here on earth. First because we was "begotten" of the Father. He was not born into a fallen state as we are. And Second because he did not sin - Sin is the other method a person can become fallen (This is why Satan is a fallen individual).

If Jesus had sin when tempted by Satan they he would not have been able to atone anyone's sins, including his own. A fallen or sinfull person cannot atone for their sins and require a "Redeamer" to "Save" them.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did Jesus have to be a "Begotten Son in the flesh"? Being His spiritual Firstborn Son is not enough?

I have come to some conclusions that have helped me understand these questions. It basically was a quantum leap in my mind of the relationship between Elohim and Jehovah and the relationship between Elohim and the rest of mankind.

I believe that Jehovah earned the title only begotten prior to being born as a babe to the virgin Mary.

I also believe that there was a significant difference between the spiritual birth of Jehovah and the spiritual birth of the rest of mankind. The type of spiritual birth that Jehovah had was akin to when a member of the church is spiritually reborn as a son of Christ (D&C 93: 21-22). I believe that the rest of mankind was literally spiritual offspring of Elohim.

1) Christ was able to live a sinless life because he had previously been pre-conditioned against sin.

2) Christ was able to lay down his life because he was mortal, just like everyone else. His body was not special. He had a normal compliment of genetics and bled the same blood as all other mortals. He was not a half-breed.

3) Christ was able to self resurrect because he KNEW how to do it. His spirit was much, MUCH, MUCH more advanced than any other mortal earthling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I are fallen and cannot atone for our sins. We are fallen because we are sons and daughters of Adan and Eve that partook of the fruit. We are mortal and are subject to death and cannot overcome death.

Jesus was not fallen while he was here on earth. First because we was "begotten" of the Father. He was not born into a fallen state as we are. And Second because he did not sin - Sin is the other method a person can become fallen (This is why Satan is a fallen individual).

If Jesus had sin when tempted by Satan they he would not have been able to atone anyone's sins, including his own. A fallen or sinfull person cannot atone for their sins and require a "Redeamer" to "Save" them.

The Traveler

If Jesus is of David's lineage, why doesn't this qualify him for a fallen state?

I mean, if you are saying that He is not fallen because he was "begotten" by the father, then that makes me want to ask the reverse question which is why did He have to have an earthly mother?

If He was not fallen, why did He have to grow in stature in the eyes of God and man? Why would He have to fast for 40 days to prepare for His ministry, if He was not in somewhat of a fallen state?

Thanks for your responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have come to some conclusions that have helped me understand these questions. It basically was a quantum leap in my mind of the relationship between Elohim and Jehovah and the relationship between Elohim and the rest of mankind.

I believe that Jehovah earned the title only begotten prior to being born as a babe to the virgin Mary.

I also believe that there was a significant difference between the spiritual birth of Jehovah and the spiritual birth of the rest of mankind. The type of spiritual birth that Jehovah had was akin to when a member of the church is spiritually reborn as a son of Christ (D&C 93: 21-22). I believe that the rest of mankind was literally spiritual offspring of Elohim.

1) Christ was able to live a sinless life because he had previously been pre-conditioned against sin.

2) Christ was able to lay down his life because he was mortal, just like everyone else. His body was not special. He had a normal compliment of genetics and bled the same blood as all other mortals. He was not a half-breed.

3) Christ was able to self resurrect because he KNEW how to do it. His spirit was much, MUCH, MUCH more advanced than any other mortal earthling.

Thanks.

I am not sure what you mean by "pre-conditioned against sin." I've never heard that description before. What do you mean by that?

As for number 2, that goes against LDS basic beliefs. This is what it says in Gospel Principles; "Thus, God the Father became the literal Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father. That is why He is called the Only Begotten Son. He inherited divine powers from His Father. From His mother He inherited mortality and was subject to hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain, and death."

As for number 3, I am not sure where those powers come from but as quoted above from Gospel Principles, "He inherited divine powers from His Father." and the next line is, "No one could take the Savior’s life from Him unless He willed it. He had power to lay it down and power to take up His body again after dying." I think that is mostly right, that He knew how to do it but I also think that He was given authority and keys to do so granted by our Heavenly Father.

Good comments, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When sin was passed on through lineage, it was through the paternal side.

He had to have an earthly parent and experience temptation in order to judge us. He can not expect us to live a life he himself was incapable of living. He had to experience and overcome in order to be a true judge, having experienced being tempted, sorrow, separation from Heavenly Father, and pain.

Being tempted is not a sin.

The spoken acknowledgement at Jesus' baptism wasn't just for those who were witnessing, but also for Jesus himself. While He did understand who His father was, since He spoke of it in the temple at the age of twelve, He still needed to learn His role, He had passed through the veil as well. After receiving the Holy Ghost suddenly He was given quite a bit more to learn. He fasted for forty days in the wilderness in order to come to a full realization of the nature of His relationship with His Father, and divinity. He grew in wisdom,

"Christ's realization that He was the chosen and foreordained Messiah came to Him gradually.....He had much to think about, much that demanded prayer and the communion with God that prayer alone could insure. Throughout the period of retirement, he ate not, but chose to fast, that His mortal body might the more completely be subjected to His divine spirit." (Talmage, p 120)

His time in the wilderness was not to repent, but to gain knowledge, accept His divinity, and speak with His Father to receive insruction before beginning His ministry. (IF He had sin, which He didn't, it would have been washed away at His baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost)

Once again being the perfect example for us...first take care of your baptism and get yourself on the right path, then worry about others.

Edited by jayanna
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share