Son of God?


Justice
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 523
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hala401,

It isn't necessarily how much we "know" as it is what we are learning. Socrates is my favorite philosopher for one thing he brought out: compared to all the truths and knowledge in the universe, we know nothing. Even if we could memorize everything ever written or discovered since the beginning of earth until now, we still would know a microscopic amount of information regarding all God's creations.

I am not an "expert" on ancient Israel because someone opened my head and dumped lots of data in there. I've spent 30 years researching all of this stuff. I've studied the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi, and many ancient Jewish and Christian texts. I've studied teachings from both LDS and non-LDS scholars. And I've seen a major shift in scholarship in regards to the divine council, anthropomorphic God, and other areas towards what has been accepted by Mormons since the 1840s (or earlier).

And though I've spent 30 years studying this, compared to all the knowledge out there, I still relatively know nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hala401,

It isn't necessarily how much we "know" as it is what we are learning. Socrates is my favorite philosopher for one thing he brought out: compared to all the truths and knowledge in the universe, we know nothing. Even if we could memorize everything ever written or discovered since the beginning of earth until now, we still would know a microscopic amount of information regarding all God's creations.

I am not an "expert" on ancient Israel because someone opened my head and dumped lots of data in there. I've spent 30 years researching all of this stuff. I've studied the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi, and many ancient Jewish and Christian texts. I've studied teachings from both LDS and non-LDS scholars. And I've seen a major shift in scholarship in regards to the divine council, anthropomorphic God, and other areas towards what has been accepted by Mormons since the 1840s (or earlier).

And though I've spent 30 years studying this, compared to all the knowledge out there, I still relatively know nothing.

Gosh, I just feel so inadequate now. I'm 65 and the thought of my learning Greek so I can read the Vulgate just seems horrifyingly insurmountable now. I mean, what use can the average person be? My utter shock has me feeling so "put in my place". I think I will go clean the kitchen now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hala, again there are probably many areas of life where you've learned more than me. And there's always someone who knows more than both of us in every particular of life. As I said, it is an issue of continually learning new things. I hope you learn Greek so you can study the Vulgate, etc. It will be a great benefit to you. Being 65 means little. Many Americans now live well into their 80s and 90s. You start now, and you'll have decades to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hala, again there are probably many areas of life where you've learned more than me. And there's always someone who knows more than both of us in every particular of life. As I said, it is an issue of continually learning new things. I hope you learn Greek so you can study the Vulgate, etc. It will be a great benefit to you. Being 65 means little. Many Americans now live well into their 80s and 90s. You start now, and you'll have decades to learn.

Thank you for the encouragement. I still feel complicated, mixed up things. How can those who told me they were educated pastors have lied to me my whole life? How can I posibly be so ignorant? It is all very confusing. I want to find some of those people and cry and scream at them, and maybe hit them, and ask them how they could posibly have violated the trust of the people and not told the truth about God!

This Latin Vulgate has been around a long time, and how could the Catholics, and protestants have withheld such important truths? It was right there before them and they chose to advance the trinity false hood.

If Jesus walking on the water says it is me, "I AM", how can that be misinterpreted. I know that I am still speaking from a well of ignorance, but how can those who love God have been so decieved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the encouragement. I still feel complicated, mixed up things. How can those who told me they were educated pastors have lied to me my whole life? How can I posibly be so ignorant? It is all very confusing. I want to find some of those people and cry and scream at them, and maybe hit them, and ask them how they could posibly have violated the trust of the people and not told the truth about God!

This Latin Vulgate has been around a long time, and how could the Catholics, and protestants have withheld such important truths? It was right there before them and they chose to advance the trinity false hood.

If Jesus walking on the water says it is me, "I AM", how can that be misinterpreted. I know that I am still speaking from a well of ignorance, but how can those who love God have been so decieved?

Perhaps it may help if you went back and restudied in more detail about forgiveness of others?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still avoiding the topic like Shelly I see, Obviously if your were aware of any NT passage that expresses the Trinity, you would have referenced it by now.

I think I brought up my understanding previously, so forgive me if this is a repeat. However, it is true that about the only passage of scripture that seems to overtly address the trinitarian nature of God is one that is highly questionable. Modern translation do not include it. Trinitarians sometimes use the baptism of Jesus as one of the few passages that has all three together. However, I would not bother using that, even with Jehovah's Witnesses. It makes nice frosting on the theological cake for those already convinced, but does little for skeptics.

It is true that there is no single Bible passage that lays out the nature of God as a Trinity, and explains it. Instead, we are left taking different components of the doctrine, and founding those affirmed in various Bible passages. Such is not illegitimate, but, of course, skeptics will charge "cherry picking" and "out of context" usage.

There is no easy solution. God did not choose to express his full nature, in detail, in any passage of the Bible. We truly do see through the glass darkly. However, this absence does not necessarily mean that God does not want us to know him, or to meditate on his nature.

The Trinity is a doctrine that developed in reaction to perceived false teachings about Christ and the Godhead. Many of these alternative doctrines were not developed when the Bible books were written. Thus, there is no passage that addresses them. Instead, we go back to the scriptures and try to find passages that explain the various questions we have. We do not get a single passage study, but rather several passages, each open to discussion.

Shelly, Maureen, I, and any other Trinitarians on the site are not trying to avoid such questions. On the other hand, some may try to avoid being pidgeon-holed into what may see a debate trap.

I'd also suggest that this particular doctrinal discussion is complicated because, to most Christians, day to day, the nature of God is not of immediate concern. However, wrapped up in this discussion is the LDS challenge to traditional Christianity (the Great Apostasy), the veracity of Joseph Smith's revelations, the authority of the Church (LDS & Catholic), and so many other issues we all consider crucial.

For the most part, it's been a great discussion. These are the strings that make my time here worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trinitarians sometimes use the baptism of Jesus as one of the few passages that has all three together. However, I would not bother using that, even with Jehovah's Witnesses. It makes nice frosting on the theological cake for those already convinced, but does little for skeptics.

Sorry for not understanding your meaning, PC, but what is it about the Holy Trinity that you believe the passages about Jesus' baptism illustrates for those who already believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Latin Vulgate has been around a long time, and how could the Catholics, and protestants have withheld such important truths? It was right there before them and they chose to advance the trinity false hood.

If Jesus walking on the water says it is me, "I AM", how can that be misinterpreted. I know that I am still speaking from a well of ignorance, but how can those who love God have been so decieved?

I'm a bit confused with this. Jesus is the I AM. This is pretty common knowledge. John 8:58-59 tie-in well with Exodus 3:14. This is why the Jews want to stone Jesus for blasphemy--he said he was the I AM. I have used this to affirm Christ deity, and support the Trinity. Why would you accuse your former pastors of lying to you--especially with intentionality??? I am quite certain they believed and still believe what they taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really appreciate this thread. My understanding of the trinitarian position is that God the Father is in very fact the father of God the Son. God the Son is in very fact the sone of God the Father. These two are co-eternal persons, but the same being. Further, this relationship is also an eternal relationship. There was never a time when the Son was just a glimmer in the Father's eye, if you catch my drift. If that is correct, then I think I can see where you're coming from. This is what has been revealed, either through scriptures or council, and to go any farther is to land on shaky ground.

I can see how the "origin story" - or lack of one, reflects in each group's theology. For trinitarians, God is wholly other (my words) and our relationship with him is via adoption, so we have an origin story for entering God's family. We confess Christ, and as necessary, are baptized. We follow the path Christ marked in this life for us. I emphasize that we have an origin in this family, pinpointing some time or event, but the Son does not. Being God and wholly other, there was no time that he was not the Son. Even if some heretic were to presume that there was some story (a divine consort; the Father took an axe to his head; placed a portion of himself in a heavenly vessel he found lying around; cloning) - it wouldn't matter because our path to sonship is wholly different from His.

For the LDS, we find that before this life the Son was already marking the path for us. He was a spirit child of our Father, as were we. He was obedient to Father's plan and wanted to participate in the way God specified (as did we). So when we follow Christ in this life, we are continuing the journey we started before we were born. When we hear his origin story, we learn something more about our nature. (all that being said, while we do have a similar claim to sonship in the spirit child sense, we also believe that our "rebirth" into the divine family comes through adoption (on account of our sins, where Christ did not)).

Here's where I'm getting fuzzy. What's this notion of "eternally begotten"? The way I see it, there's no need for a begetting at all. God just is. The Father and the Son are just father and son because of their relationship. To me this sounds like a teaching that comes about because someone like Justice approached the Bishops and started asking about the Son's beginning, and so they responded strongly since he was getting such a following. Is there some specific meaning to being eternally begotten? Or is this statement supposed to mean that the Son is indeed begotten (as opposed to us "created"s) and that has been the case for all eternity?

Edited by mordorbund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that is not part of this thread but, are there verses in the Book of Mormon that show that the Nephites saw God the Father as a personage with flesh and bones, like 21st century Mormons believe?

M.

...didn't someone in the BofM go blind or die because he saw the finger of God? That would suggest God has a physical body, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

Sorry for not understanding your meaning, PC, but what is it about the Holy Trinity that you believe the passages about Jesus' baptism illustrates for those who already believe?

To be clear, PC, this question is for clarification and not debate.

Link to comment

The JST was not a complete work over of the Bible. Joseph Smith handled a few topics within the Bible and used it more as an effort to learn and receive revelation. Just because he left some things in, does not mean they are inspired. For example, his Bible retained the Song of Solomon, even though he said it is not inspired.

Why leave it in? Because it doesn't hurt anything. It is still an ancient text and we can learn from its ancient poetry.

And this is exactly why we have modern revelation. The Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon clarify many things that are not clear in the Bible, or that were later interpolations.

Can someone clarify for me, then, what the LDS view of Scripture is, especially in reference to the Bible? I understand that the church uses the KJV exclusively, but I always assumed it (the church) took a similar stance to all of their scriptures as many Protestants do -- that they are the inspired Word of God. But this does not appear to be the case here, since Joseph Smith did not believe the entire Bible to be inspired.

So what exactly is the LDS teaching on the Bible? All inspired? Only parts? Which parts? And why keep parts in that *aren't* inspired? The Protestants had no problem cutting out the deuterocanonical books during the Reformation; why didn't Joseph Smith follow suit?

And why is the KJV the most correct translation of the Bible? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm going off my memory of things I looked into years ago, but didn't the KJV have thousands of errors in it that needed to be corrected?

Was Joseph Smith undergoing to create his own translation of the Bible during his lifetime? I know he had translated parts of the Bible... if he had completed the whole thing, would that version be used over every other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...didn't someone in the BofM go blind or die because he saw the finger of God? That would suggest God has a physical body, in my opinion.

On the contrary, the brother of Jared saw the finger of God, fell down in fear, then was granted the privilege of seeing the premortal Christ. Read all about it.

Ironically, the appearance itself of the Lord to brother of Jared did not prove that God has a body, since the Lord was in his premortal state and, thus, a being of spirit. But the Lord did tell the brother of Jared that he would take upon himself a body of flesh, and that "even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh."

This particular passage does not say anything about the physicality of the Father, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the key issue here is that of what it means for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be "one", and whether this is monotheistic. In my opinion, and from discussing this issue many, many times, from both the Catholic and Latter-day Saint perspectives, over the years, I think that the traditional Trinity and LDS Godhead doctrines are closer to each other than many on either side may realize.

This was a very good basic explanation of the problems with the Trinity debate.

As someone who very recently converted the Catholic Church, I'm curious as to what some of the doctrines were that led you to the LDS church. The only LDS members I know grew up in the church; the only converts I know of weren't religious to begin with. I'm curious as to how a conversion to such a different theological mindset goes.

One thing about converts that is great, though, is that they can see the different perspectives on both sides of the debates. That is very helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, the brother of Jared saw the finger of God, fell down in fear, then was granted the privilege of seeing the premortal Christ. Read all about it.

Ironically, the appearance itself of the Lord to brother of Jared did not prove that God has a body, since the Lord was in his premortal state and, thus, a being of spirit. But the Lord did tell the brother of Jared that he would take upon himself a body of flesh, and that "even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh."

This particular passage does not say anything about the physicality of the Father, however.

Forgive me, because I read the BofM only once, and it was a few months ago, so I might be remembering wrong. This whole chapter is a little confusing to me. I see God showing His finger to a man -- "and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood" -- and then the man saying that "I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood" meaning that he wasn't aware the Lord had flesh, but after seeing Him he now knows that He does. But then the Lord says "thou hast seen that I *shall* take upon me flesh and blood," which, to me, means that He doesn't have flesh *yet.* Later on He says that this is His spirit body. I was not aware that the spirits had spirit bodies; I assumed spirits did not have bodies at all.

And then we learn that this is really Jesus, not God the Father. And Jesus says that He is "the Father *and* the Son" and that anyone who believes in His name shall be His sons and daughters.

What confuses me here is that by the end of the passage we learn that this is a vision of Christ, not God the Father. So the book was using "God" to mean Jesus. However, I thought that Christ was God's spirit Son, as well as all of the population of the Earth. So how can those who believe in Christ be His sons and daughters? Aren't they really His brothers and sisters? And didn't God the Father create Christ and all of the Earth's population? Because this passage clearly states that Christ is speaking, and that He says "And never have I shown myself unto man whom *I have created.*"

So... I would love some help in understanding this passage. Does the BofM commonly use "God" and "the Lord" to represent both God the Father and Jesus Christ? Perhaps that is what is confusing me so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lot of things coming into play here, Shelly.

First, God is not a name, but a title or rank. That can help define your question about how Jesus is called God. We believe that He is. But, we also believe He is not the Father, but the Father is God too. Make sense?

Much like 2 generals, General Bob and General Mike. Mike and Bob are both Generals, but Mike is not Bob and Bob is not Mike, but both are generals.

We believe spirit is matter. We believe it exists like our physical bodies exist, but not by blood. Joseph Smith taught that spirit matter is more fine or pure than physical matter, and can only be discerned by purer eyes.

God allowed the brother of Jared to see His spirit body, because of his faith, just like Moses saw Him face to face. Because the spirit of God was upon the brother of Jared he was able to see the future, and that God (Jehovah, or the pre-mortal CHrist) would take upon Himself flesh and blood.

You have to read it a lot of times.

I hope I helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It strikes my as unnecessary to press God on the details of his nature, by insisting to the nth degree that his revelation to us fit our precises experiences.

This makes sense to me. In fact, I did not press Him on any of these details. He revealed Himself to Joseph Smith, and many witnessed angels, gold plates, and Christ Himself, and it is all available for us to read. I read it. I did not press Him.

I think He wants us to know. I don't think He wants us wondering or confused. But, we have to have an open mind and seek.

I mean really, at least to me, these questions are unnecessary.

I didn't start asking until I saw they had been revealed. They aren't a mystery to me. They aren't incomprehensible to me. I can explain them to you just as I understand them. That's something you cannot do with the Trintiy belief (at least not yet).

Some of them strike me as close to disrespectful. God is not human.

Yet, we believe we are His literal children. Children are not disrespectful when they ask, in sincerity, "Father, who art thou?" He reveals what He will. The only reason these seem disrespectful to you is because you believe if He wanted us to understand then He would tell us, without us having to ask. Interestingly enough, He did tell us. I'm sharing with you what He said.

This relationship does not require any of the above, and if God has not revealed the details, they are not for us to know. Oh, I suppose we can ask...but I am certainly not going to enter a crisis of faith if I fail to get the "blood and gut" details.

This is my point. He has! And, He says the relationship does require the above. That the men who made up the Trinity were not inspiried when they did. The Church had fallen and men's views became corrupt.

PC, it's a beautiful thing! We are offspring of God, just as Paul states. There isn't a single belief in the world that offers more vision of His love and relationship to us!

You contend that traditionalists are playing with words, if we fail to lay out precisely how Jesus can be called a son if he was not born, did not have a mother in heaven, etc. You seem to say that if the traditional belief that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, co-equal with the Father, then his sonship is an impossible wordplay. I'm not even sure how to respond.

I understand your difficulty being on an LDS forum. You can't very well say "you are just wrong." Open your mind if for a split second and see the possibilities of us being God's literal children. How amazing! How indescribable! How understandable God is!

I love you, PC, and I appreciate the discussion. I have learned a lot even if I don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why bring it up as evidence, if you admit it may not be valid? Is this a "squirrel" moment, where you are hoping to distract us from the actual discussion into a tangent?

I never brought it up as evidence. I was showing in Post #278 that the Comma is common knowledge by textual critics. I pointed out to Snow that he seemed to have no problem accusing monks and scribes from centuries before as being deliberately corrupt for adding the Comma but it didn't seem to bother him that Joseph Smith kept it in his inspired version of the Bible.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh, I just feel so inadequate now. I'm 65 and the thought of my learning Greek so I can read the Vulgate just seems horrifyingly insurmountable now. I mean, what use can the average person be? My utter shock has me feeling so "put in my place". I think I will go clean the kitchen now.

You don't need to worry. The Vulgate is in Latin, not Greek - Version Vulgata for the vulgar or common tongue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow you are either illiterate or blind, see Post #278. 1John 5:7-8 are the verses that show the trinitarian formula, best known as Comma Johanneum, which you believe corrupt scribes composed.

What are you talking about? The Comma isn't part of the original NT. I that if you could post any passage that described the Trinity, you would have done so by now. By that, I meant an authentic passage from the NT, not a fake one.

And Joseph Smith kept it in his inspired version of the Bible.

You point being.... what?

He did know his own nature, he knew he was human and he knew he was God (divine).

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth,159 before Abraham came into existence,160 I am!”161 (John 8:58)

161sn I am! is an explicit claim to deity. Although each occurrence of the phrase “I am” in the Fourth Gospel needs to be examined individually in context to see if an association with Exod 3:14 is present, it seems clear that this is the case here (as the response of the Jewish authorities in the following verse shows).

M.

Avoiding the question I see. You know full well that I was referring to his supposed Trinitarian nature. Let's not play games... okay?

By the way, I see that Shelly, who you say is ignoring me, is still posting "thanks" on every responses you make to me. She obviously is following my posts quite avidly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

A shepherd is "a person, such as a clergyman, who watches over or guides a group of people" so I am not really sure what your point there is.

However, when Psalms, which is poetry, refers to God and wings (or John refers to Jesus as the door) the context makes explicitly clear what is being referred to.

So, when the Bible says that Moses spoke face to face with God, as a man speaks to a friend, you want us to believe that Moses DID NOT speak with God face to face, as a man speaks with a friend, rather that the biblical author meant something else instead. What, pray tell, did he mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow, you are the one playing games, since you know perfectly well that there are no verses in the Bible that directly says that God is a trinity. So what? You already know how Trinitarians come to the conclusion that God is a trinity. You choose to not believe the Trinity doctrine, and that's fine, don't believe it. So what's your point? Do you think your inane questions are going to convince the non-LDS that we're so wrong and now you've come to our rescue? What's your agenda?

M.

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