Son of God?

[prisonchaplain]

My point had nothing to do with whether or not they like Mormonism. Rather it was in response to your counter that a reformationist, Luther, didn't set out initially to reform the massive corruption he saw in the Catholic Church. My point, as I recall, is that regardless of Luther's initial reluctance, the reformation was a response to the corruption.

That there was corruption is beyond dispute. The issue seems to be whether it reached a level that would justify the Great Apostasy doctrine that apostolic and priesthood autority was lost. Luther wanted to save the church from what corruption he saw. He did not want to destroy the church. And, again, quite ironically, some Protestant scholars believe that Lutheranism might indeed have saved the Catholic church.

[prisonchaplain]

OK, let's take the Chinese first. I live in Portland, Oregon and used to frequent Portland State University a bit. I once heard some students talking about the Chinese explorers, but took only a casual interest in it. I will have to run by there soon, once school is in session again to see what their Archaeology folk have to say about it. Here is one link that mentions the book that you say has been discredited.

Explorer from China who 'beat Columbus to America' - Telegraph

This may take some time, but I am sure to learn from the project. :)

Bah! Everyone knows that it is Leif Erikson who discovered America. We Scandanavians have never gotten our fair recognition in U.S. History! No justice...no peace...

[Hala401]

Overly influenced by general European attitudes of the era?

It is humorous when talking to natives of Peru and Chile in the present day. Their version of history is quite a lot different from what we in the West are taught. Does that surprise anyone? LOL One story I have heard is that the various Inca factions were at war when the Spaniards got there and at times the Spaniards were defended by the Incas.

Gosh, don't you guys have Missionaries in Peru? You'd think they would bring back to straight information. No wait, I know an Elder at our Ward who is from Peru. I will talk to him. :)

[Hala401]

Bah! Everyone knows that it is Leif Erikson who discovered America. We Scandanavians have never gotten our fair recognition in U.S. History! No justice...no peace...

OH, what is acceptable equivalent to ROTFLM?O ? Yes, I am of Northern European descent, um 15,000 years ago. I wonder what that means?

Personally, I think that travel across the oceans to North and South America was fairly common at least 2000 years before Columbus. I have sailed a bit and while I was married, we had dreams of doing a bit of blue water sailing. The ocean currents and winds being what they are, I think an experienced sailor could throw a bottle in the ocean over around Spain somewhere and it would be fairly likely to show up on the East Coast of the US, in a few months.

Also the voyage of Nephi is fairly straight forward in light of the idea that the winds and currents from the Arabian Penensula tend to go toward the Americas. So I have less of a problem with the book of Mormon than some.

[Dravin]

Gosh, don't you guys have Missionaries in Peru?

9 missions worth of missionaries, almost 500,000 members, and a temple ( ( Peru Country Profile - LDS Newsroom ). I'm curious how missionaries are supposed to be influencing western text book writers though.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Dravin

[Justice]

So, coming full circle...

Now that everyone has had over a week to think about it, can believers in the Trinity accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as our language defines "son," or does it need to be a symbolic or created type of sonship to fit with that particular belief system?

What role does the word "begotten" play, and is "begotten son" different than "son?"

Have your thoughts been exapanded or enlarged on this topic since it started?

Has anyone had any "aha" moments while pondering comments in this thread?

[volgadon]

Now that everyone has had over a week to think about it, can believers in the Trinity accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as our language defines "son," or does it need to be a symbolic or created type of sonship to fit with that particular belief system?

Symbolic and adoptive senses were used inthe past just as frequently as the literal sense.

[Justice]

Used in the past to describe "son" in general or that Jesus Christ is the "symbolic or adoptive" Son of God?

[Shelly200]

So, coming full circle...

Now that everyone has had over a week to think about it, can believers in the Trinity accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as our language defines "son," or does it need to be a symbolic or created type of sonship to fit with that particular belief system?

What role does the word "begotten" play, and is "begotten son" different than "son?"

Have your thoughts been exapanded or enlarged on this topic since it started?

Has anyone had any "aha" moments while pondering comments in this thread?

I would say that Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God in the way that the LDS church does. Specifically because we believe that all three Persons of the Trinity -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- have co-existed for all time. This belief is not compatible with the LDS view that Jesus is literally the Father's first-born spirit child -- in order to believe this idea, one would have to believe that there was a time in which the Father existed and the Son did not yet. So the two ideas aren't in sync.

The creed that we recite in Mass every (day) week specifically says that Christ is "begotten, not made," which further backs up our belief that Christ and the Father (and the Holy Spirit) are co-eternal -- Jesus was begotten, not created, because creation implies that there was a time He did not exist.

We believe He was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," not through any physical means. This is a mystery as to how specifically this came about... in my own mind I just picture Mary being pregnant, full stop. Nothing special about it. God simply wanted the Virgin to be pregnant, and so she was. (If you want to get really technical about it, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was also conceived with out sin-- the Immaculate Conception-- [and that she lived an entirely sinless life] and that she is "ever Virgin" -- she remained a virgin her entire life. But only the Catholic and Orthodox hold to this belief.)

As to this topic: what is the official LDS position on the Incarnation? How does the church believe Mary conceived?

[Hala401]

So, coming full circle...

Now that everyone has had over a week to think about it, can believers in the Trinity accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as our language defines "son," or does it need to be a symbolic or created type of sonship to fit with that particular belief system?

What role does the word "begotten" play, and is "begotten son" different than "son?"

Have your thoughts been exapanded or enlarged on this topic since it started?

Has anyone had any "aha" moments while pondering comments in this thread?

I just keep in mind that to me the "wording" is not very important. They were pretty clueless about his purpose, except for a very few people, his time probably felt wasted. I just hope that he would be better received today, but I have my doubts. His sacrifice is one of those unfathomable things that I hope to "get" before I die.

[prisonchaplain]

Used in the past to describe "son" in general or that Jesus Christ is the "symbolic or adoptive" Son of God?

How do you propose that I digest a belief that Jesus was literally birthed with my belief that Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father? He is the one and only Son of God. It is we who are adopted--grafted into the line of Abraham, by the shed blood of Jesus.

You find it necessary to grapple with HOW it is that Jesus BECAME the Son of God. We believe he has always been God's Son, and worry not about the details.

[Justice]

Well, obviously, PC, it is a curiosity of mine as to how one can be a son and not be offspring. That's the purpose of this thread. You asked the question I am asking:

How do you propose that I digest a belief that Jesus was literally birthed with my belief that Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father?

That's what I'm asking. It's not my belief, but yours. I'm hoping to get some more insight, after having had time to ponder, on how you solve this with your beliefs. My only conclusion is that you have to believe "Jesus is co-eternal" and not really offspring of the Father. It can't even be a physical offspring (His mortal body) because you believe the Father doesn't have a body. So, son but not offspring in any way. That's going to take me a long time to digest, if I ever can. So, I'm sure you see my difficulty, not believing in a Trinity, considering your difficulty having a belief in the Trinity.

Shelly, I would say your belief that Mary was also conceived this way and lived a perfect life is the result of the traditions of corrupted church leaders. That's all I'll say on the matter, I don't really want this thread changed into a debate about Mary.

I really appreciate your candid comments.

As far as your questions: we believe that the Father has a body of flesh and bones whereby genetic material can be taken and used as the source DNA in Christ's conception, making Jesus also the begotten Son in the flesh of the Father, aside from being literal offspring of the Father in the spirit. As to specifically how His genetic source code was actually used, we can only speculate.

How do you define "begotten" exactly, because I can't understand your comaprison to begotten and how Christ can be co-eternal with the Father. I picture begotten having a specific meaning, and it is close to offspring. Maybe I'm wrong?

[Shelly200]

Shelly, I would say your belief that Mary was also conceived this way and lived a perfect life is the result of the traditions of corrupted church leaders. That's all I'll say on the matter, I don't really want this thread changed into a debate about Mary.

I really appreciate your candid comments.

As far as your questions: we believe that the Father has a body of flesh and bones whereby genetic material can be taken and used as the source DNA in Christ's conception, making Jesus also the begotten Son in the flesh of the Father, aside from being literal offspring of the Father in the spirit. As to specifically how His genetic source code was actually used, we can only speculate.

How do you define "begotten" exactly, because I can't understand your comaprison to begotten and how Christ can be co-eternal with the Father. I picture begotten having a specific meaning, and it is close to offspring. Maybe I'm wrong?

1.) Just me personally, but if it had been me, and I didn't want to make this thread about Mary, I would've simply said "I appreciate your explanation about the Catholic doctrine of Mary, but I disagree with it," and that would've been it. Going on to further say that this doctrine a a tradition of a corrupt church, seems harsh in light of us trying to share and understand each others' beliefs. Personally, I feel like Joseph Smith was corrupt, but don't feel the need to voice it (until now, I guess), because it's not relevant to our discussion. If we were discussing JS, then I'd probably mention it, but this thread is to share and understand beliefs concerning Christ. I mentioned Mary in relation to Christ, because to the Catholic Church she is relevant to the Incarnation.

And just as an FYI: the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not a created doctrine, as many people believe. There was not a papal declaration on it until the 19th century, but the thing with ex cathedra statements is that they are made, not to create new dogma as is thought among non-Catholics, but to *restate* already commonly held beliefs; either in response to a new heresy, or to help the faithful. (Although, I would not think the LDS would have a problem with the idea of the pop being infallible [not to the LDS, but the idea in general], because they believe that the LDS prophets can speak as the mouthpiece of God... it's a very similar idea.) The concept of the Immaculate Conception has been believed by many since at least the time of the Church Fathers, if not sooner, and has a basis in Scripture, as does all Catholic doctrine.

2.) It's important to note that words have multiple meanings. And thus, non-LDS have zero confusion in believing Jesus is God's son and not His offspring. I've heard many men of older age call men of younger age "son" as a term of endearment, as opposed to a reference to his biological offspring. The same could be said of "brother" and "sister" (are not *all* LDS women referred to as "sister?"); friends can frequently call themselves brothers and sisters, when in actuallity they aren't. Jesus is God's Son, but not His biological offspring in the human sense.

3.) I must admit that the word "begotten" can be confusing. We do not mean that Jesus is begotten in the same way that all of the generations were in the Pentateuch --"so and so begat so and so, and so and so begat so and so." We believe that he is "eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten- not made, consubstantial witht the Father." Once again, begotten in the Pentateuch sense would imply that God created Jesus, and that He, therefore, is not co-eternal with God ... and to us non-LDS that would make God God and Jesus... something not God. For us, Christ IS God, and, therefore, cannnot have ever NOT been.

The way in which the Trinity exists is a mystery that will more than likely come to light to us in the afterlife. The Catholic Church teaches that the Trinity is one God in three Persons; none of the Persons came into being, they always existed together. Perhaps the term "Son" for the second Person of the Trinity is merely a title we use, because we call the first Person of the Trinity "Father." Perhaps Christ and God uses the terms of parent and child in order to help us lowly humans understand Him a little bit more. I'm not exactly sure. Once again, I'm not a professional theologian (and to be honest, I've only been in the Catholic Church for less than a year), so I don't know all of the ways a professional who has studied this concept all his life would explain it. It is something that we simply believe; we take it on faith, on the teachings of (what we believe to be) Christ's one, true, infallible Church, on the readings of Scripture, and on the affirmations of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us.

In the end, if you look at Christ as God's Son remembering that "son" does not always, 100% of the time *have* to mean offspring (and that we believe we will not be able to fully understand the entirety of God in this life anyway), then the idea isn't hard to accept.

For me it is the other way around; I personally find it hard to believe that God has a physical body in the first place, and that Christ is His literal, DNA-having offspring. A lot of the time, I guess it depends on what you're used to and experiences you have in your life that make some things easy to accept over others.

[maiku]

2.) It's important to note that words have multiple meanings. And thus, non-LDS have zero confusion in believing Jesus is God's son and not His offspring. I've heard many men of older age call men of younger age "son" as a term of endearment, as opposed to a reference to his biological offspring. The same could be said of "brother" and "sister" (are not *all* LDS women referred to as "sister?"); friends can frequently call themselves brothers and sisters, when in actuallity they aren't. Jesus is God's Son, but not His biological offspring in the human sense.

The way in which the Trinity exists is a mystery that will more than likely come to light to us in the afterlife. The Catholic Church teaches that the Trinity is one God in three Persons; none of the Persons came into being, they always existed together. Perhaps the term "Son" for the second Person of the Trinity is merely a title we use, because we call the first Person of the Trinity "Father." Perhaps Christ and God uses the terms of parent and child in order to help us lowly humans understand Him a little bit more. I'm not exactly sure.

I'm going to be frank here, I've read these 26 pages over the last week and have seen NOTHING that gives an answer to the OP.

In what way in Jesus God's son?

I've heard "in relationship" in these posts. If they share a co-eternal relationship as the same being, they are not father and son, by pure definition, but rather one being. I.E., I can't be my own father. Two beings must exist for a father-son relationship to exist.

[Shelly200]

I'm going to be frank here, I've read these 26 pages over the last week and have seen NOTHING that gives an answer to the OP.

In what way in Jesus God's son?

I've heard "in relationship" in these posts. If they share a co-eternal relationship as the same being, they are not father and son, by pure definition, but rather one being. I.E., I can't be my own father. Two beings must exist for a father-son relationship to exist.

The Trinity is one Being with three Persons. The Persons of the Trinity are distinct, but they are of the same Being. The Trinity is not multiple Beings; that would mean He is multiple gods, which the Catholic Church does not believe. As I said, I'm not a professional theologian, but this is the basic principle of the Trinity. Once again, I like the analogy of Love: God is Love (not *like* love, He *is* Love), and in Love there is the Beloved, the Lover, and the Love they share. This is one beautiful way to think of the Trinity.

And also, once again, words can have multiple uses. I have said that Christ is not God's Son in "the pure definition" of His biological offspring (the Father, we believe, does not have a body to have any biology to reproduce). So, no, I would not say that Christ is God's Son even "in relationship" if by "in relationship" you mean the relationship a child has to his biological father whose DNA helped create him.

Perhaps we can say that Christ is God's Son in relationship to their roles in the Trinity. They are one in Being, three in Person; there are distinct roles played by all three Persons. Perhaps the sonship of Christ is in relation to His role within the Trinity.

This is really the best way I can think to describe it at this point. Once again, we believe it is a mystery and we will all learn of it after earthly death. I personally don't feel we are meant to understand all the ways of God: to me that wouldn't be much of a god, one who can be completely understand with human reasoning.

[Hala401]

The Trinity is one Being with three Persons. The Persons of the Trinity are distinct, but they are of the same Being. The Trinity is not multiple Beings; that would mean He is multiple gods, which the Catholic Church does not believe. As I said, I'm not a professional theologian, but this is the basic principle of the Trinity. Once again, I like the analogy of Love: God is Love (not *like* love, He *is* Love), and in Love there is the Beloved, the Lover, and the Love they share. This is one beautiful way to think of the Trinity.

And also, once again, words can have multiple uses. I have said that Christ is not God's Son in "the pure definition" of His biological offspring (the Father, we believe, does not have a body to have any biology to reproduce). So, no, I would not say that Christ is God's Son even "in relationship" if by "in relationship" you mean the relationship a child has to his biological father whose DNA helped create him.

Perhaps we can say that Christ is God's Son in relationship to their roles in the Trinity. They are one in Being, three in Person; there are distinct roles played by all three Persons. Perhaps the sonship of Christ is in relation to His role within the Trinity.

This is really the best way I can think to describe it at this point. Once again, we believe it is a mystery and we will all learn of it after earthly death. I personally don't feel we are meant to understand all the ways of God: to me that wouldn't be much of a god, one who can be completely understand with human reasoning.

We are trying to explain something that is unexplainable. I put it all very simply. If we continue to pass in the night with our complicated ideology, never understanding one another, then all is lost.

The words and ideals of Jesus are simple. "Love God, Love one another". This is the core of Christian belief. I have spent most of my life with people filling my head with complicated theologies, rigid rules, unattainable goals, self loathing and damnation.

If I follow Jesus Christ, then my life will be filled with charity by volunteering where I can help others, being loving and compassionate, being moral, and being modest. The modesty was a challenge for me because inside I am the original party girl. But eventually I had to face God with that, and he helped me.

[prisonchaplain]

That's what I'm asking. It's not my belief, but yours. I'm hoping to get some more insight, after having had time to ponder, on how you solve this with your beliefs. My only conclusion is that you have to believe "Jesus is co-eternal" and not really offspring of the Father. It can't even be a physical offspring (His mortal body) because you believe the Father doesn't have a body. So, son but not offspring in any way.

As I read this I understand what you are saying. I get the purpose of the string. My frank answer is that I've never worried about such a thing. I'm not sure that philosophers and theologians have given much thought as to how an eternal person can be a Son. The Bible calls Jesus the Son of God, so that's what he is.

Perhaps your question is driven by your theology? Since you believe the Father is corporeal, and that Jesus--and we--are his physical offspring, the question you raise may seem like a powerful dilemma for Trinitarians. And...it's just not. We do not lose sleep over how it is that Jesus is an eternal Son. I do not perceive myself to be uncurious, but this question is unanswerable, and I accept what the Bible says--Jesus is the eternal Son of God.

[Snow]

The Trinity is one Being with three Persons. The Persons of the Trinity are distinct, but they are of the same Being..

Why doesn't Jesus have any understanding of the "Trinity" in the New Testament?

[Maureen]

I'm going to be frank here, I've read these 26 pages over the last week and have seen NOTHING that gives an answer to the OP.

In what way in Jesus God's son?

I've heard "in relationship" in these posts. If they share a co-eternal relationship as the same being, they are not father and son, by pure definition, but rather one being. I.E., I can't be my own father. Two beings must exist for a father-son relationship to exist.

...if God cannot have offspring, and does not have a physical body to provide genetics from, how is Jesus the Son of God?

Thank you for any input.

maiku, if you and Justice are looking for an answer that you want to agree with, then you will not find it in this thread. If you just need an answer that can help you understand better how trinitarians think about the Son of God, then there are plenty of answers in this thread.

The question has been asked and answered. It's up to you to do with it what you will.

M.

[maiku]

What I'm understanding from these answers is:

3 people are also at the same time 1 3=1

even though ONE being exists, He is both Father and Son of Himself

And lastly, this whole concept is a "mystery", not to be understood in this lifetime.

My problem with these answers is that they're anti-biblical.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

If we are to have faith in God, we MUST know who He is and the best these answers can provide is "He is incomprehensible, He is a mystery."

I have no problem with someone believing these answers. I do find it curious however that some would mock us for saying that we do know the nature of God and that He is not a mystery.

[Maureen]

What I'm understanding from these answers is:

3 people are also at the same time 1 3=1

The trinity is three persons in one being.

even though ONE being exists, He is both Father and Son of Himself

No, there is one God, and that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The three persons are individually and collectively God. The three persons are distinct from each other, the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit.

And lastly, this whole concept is a "mystery", not to be understood in this lifetime.

Yes, the trinity is a mystery, not to be completely understood in this lifetime. Although scripture has given us enough information to help us know God to the best of our finite abilities.

My problem with these answers is that they're anti-biblical.

That is your opinion.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

If we are to have faith in God, we MUST know who He is and the best these answers can provide is "He is incomprehensible, He is a mystery."

I have no problem with someone believing these answers. I do find it curious however that some would mock us for saying that we do know the nature of God and that He is not a mystery.

Are you saying that you know God completely, that there is nothing about God that is a mystery to you? You know everything about God that there is to know?

M.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Maureen

[Snow]

Yes, the trinity is a mystery, not to be completely understood in this lifetime. Although scripture has given us enough information to help us know God to the best of our finite abilities.

Maureen,

Since the Trinity is an extra-biblical belief (a belief not found in the Bible) that took 400 + years to be fully developed. why not believe something that is 1. not a mystery, and/or 2. found in the Bible instead?

[Maureen]

Maureen,

Since the Trinity is an extra-biblical belief (a belief not found in the Bible) that took 400 + years to be fully developed. why not believe something that is 1. not a mystery, and/or 2. found in the Bible instead?

Snow, I don't agree with your assessment about the Trinity being non-biblical. I see much of scripture testify to the tri-unity between the Father, Jesus and the Comforter. I like that God is a mystery. I could never believe that God the Father was once a man as LDS believe, it just isn't going to happen. I do not take the anthropomorphic characteristics that are given to God literally. I see them the same way I see the Bible describe God as a door, or a shepherd, or with wings.

M.

[Hala401]

What I'm understanding from these answers is:

3 people are also at the same time 1 3=1

even though ONE being exists, He is both Father and Son of Himself

And lastly, this whole concept is a "mystery", not to be understood in this lifetime.

My problem with these answers is that they're anti-biblical.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

If we are to have faith in God, we MUST know who He is and the best these answers can provide is "He is incomprehensible, He is a mystery."

I have no problem with someone believing these answers. I do find it curious however that some would mock us for saying that we do know the nature of God and that He is not a mystery.

I want to firmly state, that the LDS are not evil and they have done things for me that other faiths either could not or would not do for me. The office of the First Presidency has helped me solve a medical issue by paying most of the cost, that no one else ever even cared about, and though my association with the LDS, I now find that God has healed my soul of a bitterness and anger that I have carried my whole life. And this while I am Yet an Investigator.

So, even if I am never baptized, I know that I have felt the love of God through the LDS and you have my undying gratitude.

So, to me, I do not need to explain every little detail about who God is, because I have felt is love and that I can understand very well. :)

[Snow]

Snow, I don't agree with your assessment about the Trinity being non-biblical. I see much of scripture testify to the tri-unity between the Father, Jesus and the Comforter. I like that God is a mystery. I could never believe that God the Father was once a man as LDS believe, it just isn't going to happen. I do not take the anthropomorphic characteristics that are given to God literally. I see them the same way I see the Bible describe God as a door, or a shepherd, or with wings.

M.

It's hardly my assessment. It's undisputed among those that are knowledgable about the Bible. The easy demonstration is no one, ever, has been able to quote a passage that described the Trinity. The only one passage that describes some of the, but not not the entire, concept of the Trinity is a forgery written by a dishonest monk or scribe who obviously knew it wasn't in the Bible and so he fabricated it.

Notice how Shelly avoided the topic like the plague?

It doesn't matter to me if you accept the LDS view or not - which by the way corresponds nicely to the ancient Jewish view - unlike the Trinity. I'll acknowledge that the Bible isn't explicit one way or the other. My question is: why don't you believe something that is in the Bible instead of something that was developed centuries later... especially since one of the key contributors to the definition, Constantine, was a very bad person, a murder and worse?