Jesus is the Son of God

[Justice]

I'm borrowing from the other thread, but want to restart it here:

But it would clash with logic and reason. Nothing exists of its own power other than God, the uncreated from which all else came into existence.

The New Testament is FILLED with logic and reason that have to be overlooked in order to believe God is a mystical Trinity. So often people try so hard to interpret the words of the Bible they forget the events that teach what the words mean.

I will make every attempt to stay black and white and not to interpret, or misinterpret, wording. There is a scripture I'd like to share:

Matthew 16:

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

This scripture is vital in this discussion on many different levels.

Christ asked a direct question of the disciples (presumably the Apostles). He asked them who they thought that He is.

Peter answered and said "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." He didn't say "thou art a manifestation of God in the flesh." He didn't say "thou art one part of the holy three manifested in the flesh." Peter spoke boldly and proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of the Living God.

Now, if you don't mean spiritually, then you must mean physically. But, you don't believe that Christ is literally God's Son, but that God caused Mary to become pregnant and He, Himself, emptied part of Himself into the body, not a Son at all.

I stick with Peter's definition, because the Lord Himself told him that he was right, and that His Father (in heaven, a different place than Jesus was) is the one who manifested that truth to Peter, not Christ Himself in the flesh.

I say Peter was right. I say Jesus Christ is the living Son of the living God. I don't distort, twist, or interpret the words. God the Father's Son is Jesus Christ, not a manifestation of part of Himself in the flesh.

I think if you don't believe that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God then you miss the whole point of the Bible.

[HiJolly]

Hmm... I think that anyone who takes the great and marvelous teachings of the Bible in only a literalistic (Pshat) level of meaning are cheating themselves of a good education in the Ways of Godliness.

[Maureen]

I'm borrowing from the other thread, but want to restart it here:

The New Testament is FILLED with logic and reason that have to be overlooked in order to believe God is a mystical Trinity. So often people try so hard to interpret the words of the Bible they forget the events that teach what the words mean.

I will make every attempt to stay black and white and not to interpret, or misinterpret, wording. There is a scripture I'd like to share:

Matthew 16:

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

This scripture is vital in this discussion on many different levels.

Christ asked a direct question of the disciples (presumably the Apostles). He asked them who they thought that He is.

Peter answered and said "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." He didn't say "thou art a manifestation of God in the flesh." He didn't say "thou art one part of the holy three manifested in the flesh." Peter spoke boldly and proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of the Living God.

Now, if you don't mean spiritually, then you must mean physically. But, you don't believe that Christ is literally God's Son, but that God caused Mary to become pregnant and He, Himself, emptied part of Himself into the body, not a Son at all.

I stick with Peter's definition, because the Lord Himself told him that he was right, and that His Father (in heaven, a different place than Jesus was) is the one who manifested that truth to Peter, not Christ Himself in the flesh.

I say Peter was right. I say Jesus Christ is the living Son of the living God. I don't distort, twist, or interpret the words. God the Father's Son is Jesus Christ, not a manifestation of part of Himself in the flesh.

I think if you don't believe that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God then you miss the whole point of the Bible.

The Trinity defines God as always existing as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Before God created anything, before the beginning, God existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And since God is one, He cannot be divided into parts. Therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are collectively God and individually God. If I have a conversation with you about Jesus, I am talking about God. If I only talk about the Holy Spirit, I am talking about God. My understanding is that the title "Son of God" refers to Jesus' divinity; and since only God is divine, Jesus is God.

M.

[Justice]

Then Jesus is not the Son of the living God, but a part of Himself emptied into the physical body (that's how a friend at work describes it anyway).

And since God is one, He cannot be divided into parts.

Only if you think "one" is one in a triune make-up bodily. But, if they are one in will and harmony, then, even though they can't be divided in will, they can be bodily, and is how Jesus stands at the right hand of the Father.

[Justice]

Hmm... I think that anyone who takes the great and marvelous teachings of the Bible in only a literalistic (Pshat) level of meaning are cheating themselves of a good education in the Ways of Godliness.

I don't know how else to take that Jesus is the Son of God.

Sure, it may have symbols and other deeper meanings, but if you don't believe Jesus is literally God's Son, first and foremost, why the deception in saying that He is? None of the other teachings and deeper meanings mean much, if Jesus is not literally God's Son.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The Trinity defines God as always existing as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Before God created anything, before the beginning, God existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And since God is one, He cannot be divided into parts. Therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are collectively God and individually God. If I have a conversation with you about Jesus, I am talking about God. If I only talk about the Holy Spirit, I am talking about God. My understanding is that the title "Son of God" refers to Jesus' divinity; and since only God is divine, Jesus is God.

M.

This sounds like a silly question I am sure, but since you are offering and I am unfamiliar with the regular use of the word Trinity: Why even use 3 different names for God if they are the one same God? What is the benefit or significance of having 3 different names? Why 3? Why not 500 names or 20 names or just one, God? What in your teaching is the purpose of the various names that all mean one thing but are spoken as if there is a difference?

Is there nothing distinguishable then between the Holy Ghost, Jesus and God the Father?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Then Jesus is not the Son of the living God, but a part of Himself emptied into the physical body (that's how a friend at work describes it anyway).

Only if you think "one" is one in a triune make-up bodily. But, if they are one in will and harmony, then, even though they can't be divided in will, they can be bodily, and is how Jesus stands at the right hand of the Father.

Yeah, and if they are divided that way then it would also be possible to be divided into 4 parts or 50 parts or 500 million parts. Just because we only know about 3, why could there not be 50 others? Then we would have to call it multinity or something like that.

[Justice]

Because of John 17 I jokingly ask my friend at work if after the resurrection if God is going to go from a Trinity to a Trillionity.

He pokes fun at my beliefs far more than I do his. But, we're good friends and don't let differences like this bother us. We both believe Jesus is the Christ, even if we part there.

[volgadon]

Technically speaking, "son of" more often than not meant that one belonged to a certain group.

Son of a carpenter = carpenter.

Son of god = a god.

[Soninme]

The New Testament is FILLED with logic and reason that have to be overlooked in order to believe God is a mystical Trinity. So often people try so hard to interpret the words of the Bible they forget the events that teach what the words mean.

I think I understand the LDS position on the creeds (Nicene, Athanasian etc.) as in the first vision Joseph Smith was told by the Lord that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight.

Seems clear that all who profess to be LDS must therefore reject the Trinity at every turn.

I wasn't aware the Trinity was taught in the Bible! Since the God of Christianity is is one God in three personages as "revealed in the Bible" I would love for you to show me the scriptures teaching the Trinity

If I may, maybe it would help if we didn't use the word "Trinity" and forgot about any creed and just read the scriptures and see what they teach.

How many Gods (capitol "G") does the Bible say there are?

Clearly we all know that no biblical writer, not even once, refers to the Godhead as "the Gods" or "the Lords" or "the Spirits" or "they" "them" etc. but as God. Mark 12:32 "for there is one God, and there is no other but He". Note; 1 God in number and is referred to as "He" not them.

The Bible says there is only one true God, (John 17:3) one wise God, (1Tim 1:17) one Almighty God, (Rev 1:8) only one God Who is to be worshiped. (Matt 4:10)

I could go on and on but it seems clear to me that the Bible says there is only one capitol "G" God.

Therefore if I was told there are 3 Gods or 3 Lords or 3 Spirits then that would be something I must clearly reject as false because no prophet or apostle has ever referred to the Godhead that way.

Now the Bible states the Father is God (1 Cor. 8:6) the Son is God (John 1:1) and the Holy Spirit is God. (Acts 5:4)

Jesus says He is a witness and His Father is another (John 8:17-18) and the Helper or Holy Spirit, Who is also a "He", is sent by the Father in Jesus name. (John 14:26) When the Father, Son and Holy Spirit speak to each other they use plural terms such as "us" and "our" (Gen 1:26 3:22) and "We". (John 17:11) So I would conclude that those three are NOT the same "person" for a lack of a better word.

What is said of the Father is also said of the Son, for instance the Father is Almighty God (Rev 4:8) and the Son is also Almighty God.(Rev 1:8)

One should ask; how can there be 2 Almighty Gods?

The Father is eternal (Ps 90:2) the Son eternal (Micah 5:2) the Holy Spirit eternal. (Heb 9:14) The Father is worshiped (Matt 4:10) the Son is worshiped (Matt 2:11) worshiped together(Rev 5:13-14)

Each indwells those who are His; the Father(2 Cor 6:16) the Son(Col 1:27) the Holy Spirit.(John 14:17) Except we aren't indwelt by 3 gods but rather one; "For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “ I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.” (2 Cor 6:16)

Many more examples could be given but the Bible says there is one and only one God yet there are three "Persons" Who are called God.

If we don't like the creeds then fine but how would you define that teaching if someone said Jesus is created or the Holy Spirit is just a force and not God?

[alex1971]

I'm in confusion mode. I like volgadon's statement:

Technically speaking, "son of" more often than not meant that one belonged to a certain group.

Son of a carpenter = carpenter.

Son of god = a god.

but on the other hand, while GODS are never actually mentioned, if we go right to the beginning, right back into Genesis Chapter One verse 26:

"Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness."

Who is the US and OUR? If Heavenly Father is all and one this would cast an observation that he was literally talking to himself. Jesus said I came down from heaven, not to do my will, but the will of him that sent me, to me this says that they are different people, not one.

Just my two pennies

[Windseeker]

When the Father, Son and Holy Spirit speak to each other they use plural terms such as "us" and "our" (Gen 1:26 3:22) and "We". (John 17:11)

If they are one then what is the point of speaking to each other. Of course they would use us when talking about their purpose just like me and my wife or me and my coworkers do. That does not show me they are one and the same. Certainly there are multiple examples of them using I, yours, mine when speaking to each other.

39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the host.

The OneGod/Trinity is so fundamental to being considered Christian yet there is nothing in the scriptures that supports it. As I stated before, to anyone who reads the Bible without any preconceived notions the understanding of the Trinity espoused by the majority of Christians seems ludicrous. But this matters little as most Christians are not taught to interpret for themselves seeking guidance by the Holy Ghost. James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom...

These scriptures I posted are so fundamental and important and they tell us so much about the relationship between the Father and Son

Edited October 14, 2011 by Windseeker
add bolds

[Maureen]

This sounds like a silly question I am sure, but since you are offering and I am unfamiliar with the regular use of the word Trinity:

The word "tri-unity" might be a better word to use.

Why even use 3 different names for God if they are the one same God? What is the benefit or significance of having 3 different names? Why 3? Why not 500 names or 20 names or just one, God? What in your teaching is the purpose of the various names that all mean one thing but are spoken as if there is a difference?

I guess we could say that God has several names that have been used to describe Him, for example, El-Shaddai is God Almighty and Adonai is my Lord. But the persons of the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not "just names" but real distinct persons that we know as God. And if we look at the great commission that Jesus gave, he said that we should baptize in "the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit", which shows a one-ness with the singular use of "name" but unity with all members of the Godhead.

Is there nothing distinguishable then between the Holy Ghost, Jesus and God the Father?

Each person of the Godhead/Trinity is distinct, the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, the HS is the Holy Spirit. But they all have the same, one and only divine nature.

M.

[SteveVH]

After reading through this thread something has become apparent to me. The Trinity is confusing to anyone who would hold the postion that God is an exalted human being. Viewing God from this viewpoint it is understandable why three Persons in one God would just not make sense. From a human standpoint how can one being consist of three persons? It cannot. But God is not human, he is divine. When Christ became human he had to humble himself; he had to "lower himself" from his divine state to take on human flesh. You would first have to do away the pre-supposition that God is nothing more than man except in his level of exaltation. This seems to be very basic to Mormon theology and therefore is difficult to overcome.

From the Trinitarian viewpoint this does not pose a problem. We believe that God subsists in and of himself, from eternity and had no need of progressing from a lower to a higher state of being. God has always been God and is infinitely above us in every way, especially in our nature. So how do we come to the conclusion that God is three Persons in one divine being?

As Soninme has pointed out, we begin with the truth that is stated over and over again in the Scriptures that there is only one God. That is a truth that provides the foundation as to how we must view God. We then find out, as was revealed through Jesus Christ, that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Do we then do away with the original truth that there is only one God? Are there now three? No, we cannot dismiss the original revelation that there is only one God. We also look at the name (not names) of God. We are told to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not in the names. His very name is a Trinity. It is a divine relationship. Notice the words "Father" and "Son". What do they indicate? They indicate a relationship, not proper names of individuals.

They are distinct in their relationship with each other. The Father is eternally the Father to the Son and the Son eternaly the Son to the Father. It is an eternal, mutual exchange of love between the Father and the Son, which results in the Holy Spirit who is that love. When Christ came to earth, it was not 1/3 of God that came to earth. It was God in his fullness because he cannot be separated. Where the Son is, the Father and the Holy Spirit are also present. Why? Because there is only one God. When Christ does his will, it is the Father's will because there is only one God, not three. They possess the same will, not three different wills in agreement with each other.

I have asked this question on another thread, several times, without having anyone yet answer it. It is extremely important to this discussion. Why do you think that Jesus is called the only Son of God? Are we not also called sons and daughters of God? How then can Jesus be the only Son of God? In addition, we are told that we become sons and daughters of God through adaption. What do you think that means? I would really appreciate the Mormon view on this.

Thanks.

Edited October 14, 2011 by StephenVH

[Soninme]

Peter answered and said "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." He didn't say "thou art a manifestation of God in the flesh." He didn't say "thou art one part of the holy three manifested in the flesh." Peter spoke boldly and proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of the Living God.

Now, if you don't mean spiritually, then you must mean physically. But, you don't believe that Christ is literally God's Son, but that God caused Mary to become pregnant and He, Himself, emptied part of Himself into the body, not a Son at all.

Justice

You continue to use modalistic definitions to explain the relationship of the Father and Son.

They are not the same person, Jesus is NOT "a manifestation of God in the flesh" nor "one part of the holy three manifested in the flesh." Every trinitarian I am aware of on this site has said that position is false. You are beating a dead horse.

In Peter's confession of faith "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" yes, Jesus commended him. He made the claim explicitly, and His hearers got the full impact of His words. John 5:18 says, "The Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

Jesus also said, "I and My Father are One." Immediately the Jews wanted to stone Him. He asked them for which good work they wanted to kill Him. The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” (John 10:33)

Volgadon is correct;

Originally Posted by volgadon

Technically speaking, "son of" more often than not meant that one belonged to a certain group.

Son of a carpenter = carpenter.

Son of god = a god.

Son of God = God.

Again the Bible says there is only one God in number yet the Father is called God the Son is called God and the Holy Spirit is called God.

Rom. 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

Edited October 14, 2011 by Soninme

[Guest gopecon]

StephenVH hit on some important points. Often we over simplify debates, which results in talking past each other. While I don't accept the Trinitarian view of God and don't find it fully contained in the Bible, I am also unable to fully show that my LDS understanding of God is found in the Bible. This is one reason why I am grateful for modern revelation that helps to clarify the nature of God. For me that is part of the beauty of Mormonism, that many more things are explained in a way that is understandable to the mortal mind (not that we understand everything, not by a long shot). With all respect I think our Trinitarian friends find their understanding of God compelling in part because it is hard to put to words - one of the mysteries of God. As StephenVH said:

"They are distinct in their relationship with each other. The Father is eternally the Father to the Son and the Son eternaly the Son to the Father. It is an eternal, mutual exchange of love between the Father and the Son, which results in the Holy Spirit who is that love. When Christ came to earth, it was not 1/3 of God that came to earth. It was God in his fullness because he cannot be separated. Where the Son is, the Father and the Holy Spirit are also present. Why? Because there is only one God. When Christ does his will, it is the Father's will because there is only one God, not three. They possess the same will, not three different wills in agreement with each other."

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but your explanation does not make earthly sense when terms like Father and Son are used as we understand them. I read Father and Son and think of the relationship I have with my father, or my children. We are each distinct "persons" (as Maureen and others have described the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), each of us occupying our own space. My father came before me, and as a father I came before my children. It seems that the words that trinitarians use mean different things when talking about God than they do talking about people here on Earth.

[Guest gopecon]

I was going to answer StephenVH's question about Jesus being the "only son of God". As far as people who have lived on Earth, Jesus is the only one with a divine parent. The only begotten of the Father. As you may know, we believe that we are all spirit children of our Father in Heaven and were spiritually created before we were born on Earth. I understand that much of Christianity believes that prior to birth/conception we did not exist at all - this is another key difference. We believe that Jeremiah 1:5 is speaking not just of God's foreknowledge, but of our existence before this life.

[SteveVH]

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but your explanation does not make earthly sense when terms like Father and Son are used as we understand them. I read Father and Son and think of the relationship I have with my father, or my children. We are each distinct "persons" (as Maureen and others have described the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), each of us occupying our own space. My father came before me, and as a father I came before my children. It seems that the words that trinitarians use mean different things when talking about God than they do talking about people here on Earth.

No disrespect taken at all. I think you are correct in your analysis. If one considers God to be infinitely above mankind in all respects then it is not that strange that we cannot fully grasp him. We are left with only human language with which to describe him and a finite mind with which to grasp the infinite. St. Augustine was walking on a beach and saw a child pouring water from the ocean into a hole he had dug in the sand. When he asked the child what he was doing the child replied that he was going to pour the entire ocean into the hole on the beach. He used that as an analogy of our attempt to grasp the unfathomable, eternal God with a human mind.

[Maureen]

...They are distinct in their relationship with each other. The Father is eternally the Father to the Son and the Son eternaly the Son to the Father. It is an eternal, mutual exchange of love between the Father and the Son, which results in the Holy Spirit who is that love....

I love this explanation. I think you are the first person Stephen that I know of that has explained their relationship in this way. Their relationship is like a family.

M.

[SteveVH]

I was going to answer StephenVH's question about Jesus being the "only son of God". As far as people who have lived on Earth, Jesus is the only one with a divine parent. The only begotten of the Father. As you may know, we believe that we are all spirit children of our Father in Heaven and were spiritually created before we were born on Earth. I understand that much of Christianity believes that prior to birth/conception we did not exist at all - this is another key difference. We believe that Jeremiah 1:5 is speaking not just of God's foreknowledge, but of our existence before this life.

Am I incorrect in my understanding, then, that Mormons believe that they are the literal offspring of the Father?

As far as Jeremiah is concerned, our take on that verse is that God is omniscient, or all knowing. He knew everything even before it came into existence. We have always been "in the mind of God", even before we were created. Another thing that may cause problems in our understanding each other is that we believe that God exists in eternity, which means outside of created time and space. All of history unfolds before him at once. Again, because we have not experienced this state of being, it is difficult to grasp, but we believe it remains a truth nevertheless.

Anyway, I appreciate your willingness to at least consider this position and how we arrive at it, whether you believe it or not. I admire you for your intellectual honesty.

[SteveVH]

I love this explanation. I think you are the first person Stephen that I know of that has explained their relationship in this way. Their relationship is like a family.

M.

Yes, exactly, and the human family is the greatest sign of our being made in the image and likeness of God. He created us male and female for a reason. The two become one, and the result of the love between the two is another person, so real that nine months later we must give it a name.

[Guest gopecon]

Stephen - Yes, we believe that we are the literal, spirit children of Father in Heaven. As His children we believe that we came to this life to gain bodies and learn to become more like Him. As Paul wrote in Romans 8:16-17 "16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

I too appreciate your respectful tone. This same discussion could go into an entirely different direction if we all went at it with contention. There's no reason that we Christians shouldn't be able to discuss these things in a reasonable manner, which is one thing I like about this board.

[SteveVH]

Stephen - Yes, we believe that we are the literal, spirit children of Father in Heaven. As His children we believe that we came to this life to gain bodies and learn to become more like Him. As Paul wrote in Romans 8:16-17 "16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

I too appreciate your respectful tone. This same discussion could go into an entirely different direction if we all went at it with contention. There's no reason that we Christians shouldn't be able to discuss these things in a reasonable manner, which is one thing I like about this board.

May I ask then, how are we different from Christ? Adam and Eve had no human parents. They were certainly "children" of God, with no human origin. Yet Christ is called the only Son of God. What I believe this shows is that Christ is fundamentally and essentially different. I will never be a son of God as Jesus is Son of God. Nevertheless, out of God's goodness and mercy I will share in the inheritance of Jesus, but through adoption, not because I am a literal offspring. There are people who will not receive the inheritance, therefore, we are not heirs by nature, but only through adoption.

Thanks for the kind words.

[Gramajane]

Maybe this will be interesting to some? KJV

Matt 24:36 but of that day and hour knoweth no, man, no not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

or how about this in John 17 :11

"... that they may be one, as we are"

I'm sorry but I must go. Hope to be back later.

[Gramajane]

ok, I have a few more moments-- I believe Jesus is called "the only *begotton* Son of God?

I do not remember where is says "only son of God" without the begotton, in there?

by the way, I understand the way begotten is used in the bible, indicates physical father of, and not adopted or like father of a nation, (not human)?