Son of God?

[Justice]

As you know, I have been having on-going discussions with a friend at work about various Christian beliefs.

He is Trinitarian, and I proposed the following question to him, to which he did not have an answer, or his answer was "I don't know." I'm wondering if any of our Trinitarian friends here can help provide an answer.

The entire premise behind the Bible is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. God speaks from the heavens and says "This is my beloved Son: hear him." (Luke 9:35). "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." (John 3:16).

With my limited understanding of the Trinity I come away with 2 main points:

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is/are spirit, and has existed always just as they are. They cannot have offspring, because if they could there would be more than One God.

2. Since God is a spirit, He does not have a physical body of flesh and bones as we do, or as the resurrected Jesus did.

Assuming these 2 statements are true (my friend acknowledged they were), then, according to this belief, 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.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Justice

[prisonchaplain]

Jesus is the eternal Son of God by relationship. He is his Father's Son. He did not start as something else and become God's son. He has always been what He is. He was not created.

Are you suggesting that he had to be born physically to become God's Son? How could he do that if he is eternal? I think your question through your friend for a loop.

[Justice]

I was rather hoping you would reply.

Jesus is the eternal Son of God by relationship.

Maybe a bit more definition on this relationship. A son is a child or offspring. If they have existed together forever as the same essence, how can one be the son when they are the same?

He is his Father's Son.

I know this is what the Bible teaches. I'm looking for how one being can be the son of another being if those two beings are co-eternal. They are the same. Why the trickery with calling one a son?

He did not start as something else and become God's son.

No, in order to be one's son you have to be offspring. If that Sonship is literal. If it is figurative, then I'm OK with that as an explanation. I believe in the literal Sonship. I'm wondering how it can be literal if they have both always existed together.

He has always been what He is. He was not created.

So, is "The Son" just His name?

Are you suggesting that he had to be born physically to become God's Son? How could he do that if he is eternal? I think your question through your friend for a loop.

I'm suggesting that in order to be a Son you have to be the offspring of parents.

Is this just for mortal men?

If so, why confuse weak minds like mine and use a word that has a specific meaning of offspring, if, in fact, the Son is not offspring of the Father? It just muddies the water for me when I try to understand.

Is it something we can't understand? If so, why explain it as "Son" and not as "God made flesh?" I can go for that, it makes more sense. Say "God was manifest in the flesh" like it does in other parts of the Bible and forget "Son of God" if Jesus Christ is not God's literal offspring, or Son.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Justice

[Maureen]

I think a good reason why we call the first two persons of the Trinity, Father and Son, is to show that they have a very intimate relationship with each other and because of that relationship, we too can partake of their closeness.

M.

[Justice]

OK. I can buy that, Maureen. That makes sense to me.

Do you have any help to offer on how it can be a literal Father and Son relationship if they are co-eternal?

If not in the spiritual sense, then how in the physical sense? The Trinity does not have a physical body, so how can this Being be the literal Father of Jesus Christ? I understand how Mary is the literal mother, but how is God the literal Father of Jesus Christ?

If not literal Father, symbolic in some way? Is symbolic enough? Why call Jesus the Son of God if He is not the literal Son of God?

[Forget-Me-Not]

Well I can't help with an answer, but I'm looking forward to gaining some kind of insight, as I've had those core questions myself about such beliefs. The most I've gotten to help me understand what some others believe (which hasn't helped much) is when some have expressed a view that it's a metaphorical or symbolic sonship that represents God being born into the world taking on the form of man.

What I've found most interesting, though, among those I've known who are not LDS but who believe in God and in the Bible, but have not been taught a belief of God in which He does not have a body, etc., is that they don't come away with that idea from the scriptures and they tend to believe so much more as we including having the belief that Jesus, being the Son of God, means he is literally God's actual offspring.

An example of that was when my former mother-in-law learned there were other Bible believing Christians who did not believe Jesus was the actual, literal, Son of God (as in offspring) she was shocked and found it quite unbelievable, saying, "What, have they never read their Bible?! What do they think it means that Jesus is the Son of God then?!"

I couldn't answer her, but she, from reading the Bible, understood as we and she was someone who was raised in a staunch Baptist home, attending church regularly, with devout parents, and with praying in that home and being taught of God by her parents and where each morning when she arose, her father could be found at his desk reading the Bible.

So, my personal opinion is that in order to believe in ideas such as God having no body and Jesus is not being His actual, literal, Son, but being the Son of God means something else, one must be indoctrinated into that belief by other than scripture.

[Maureen]

OK. I can buy that, Maureen. That makes sense to me.

Do you have any help to offer on how it can be a literal Father and Son relationship if they are co-eternal?

No, because when humankind thinks of "literal Father and Son" it usually relates to how it is with humankind. And since God is not human plus eternal, it's like asking "How did God become God?" We don't know, we just believe that God has always existed as God.

If not in the spiritual sense, then how in the physical sense? The Trinity does not have a physical body, so how can this Being be the literal Father of Jesus Christ? I understand how Mary is the literal mother, but how is God the literal Father of Jesus Christ?

If not literal Father, symbolic in some way? Is symbolic enough? Why call Jesus the Son of God if He is not the literal Son of God?

In Judaism, God is called "Father" with a unique sense of familiarity. In addition to the sense in which God is "Father" to all men because he created the world (and in that sense "fathered" the world), the same God is also uniquely the patriarchal law-giver to the chosen people. He maintains a special, covenantal father-child relationship with the people, giving them the Shabbat, stewardship of his oracles, and a unique heritage in the things of God, calling Israel "my son" because he delivered the descendants of Jacob out of slavery in Egypt[Hosea 11:1] according to his oath to their father, Abraham. In the Hebrew Scriptures, in Isaiah 63:16 (ASV) it reads: "Thou, O Jehovah, art our Father; our Redeemer from everlasting is thy name." To God, according to Judaism, is attributed the fatherly role of protector. He is called the Father of the poor, of the orphan and the widow, their guarantor of justice. He is also called the Father of the king, as the teacher and helper over the judge of Israel.[12]

God the Father - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism has always viewed God as a "Father" and Jesus even referred to God as "Father". If Jesus not only came to atone for us but to also let humankind know who "Father" really was, it would make his witness of "Father" more valid if he had a personal relationship with Him as a "Son". Who knows a "Father" better than a "Son"? And not just any Son but His only Son. A Son unlike Father's human creation but a Son like him, divine and eternal.

That's how I see it.

M.

[Justice]

Judaism does not believe this Father had a son. Calling Him Father because He is the Father or Creator of all things is understandable, but does not require Him to be literal offspring. Again, valid definitions, as far as I am aware of the word. And that's what I'm looking for.

You said:

it would make his witness of "Father" more valid if he had a personal relationship with Him as a "Son".

Agreed.

You also said:

Who knows a "Father" better than a "Son"? And not just any Son but His only Son. A Son unlike Father's human creation but a Son like him, divine and eternal.

So, are you saying that calling Jesus the Son of God is just so that we can relate to their relationship, and come to trust Him more? Does this mean you believe there is no literal sonship, in the way man believes sons are made, by having offspring?

[The_Phoenix]

Jesus is the eternal Son of God by relationship. He is his Father's Son. He did not start as something else and become God's son. He has always been what He is. He was not created.

Are you suggesting that he had to be born physically to become God's Son? How could he do that if he is eternal? I think your question through your friend for a loop.

I would suggest that Paul got this right; "In this life we see through a glass darkly".

[rameumptom]

I see the problem that Justice is bringing up. And it goes beyond PC's and Maureen's answers.

If God is both Father and Son, co-eternal, always having been Father and Son; and then we have the Son born into mortality as the Son of God, we have a duality of Christ, as decided in the Council of Chalcedony. Again, this is one of the mysteries of God, according to those religious philosophers who decided such things in the past. The Council of Chalcedony came about because such questions arose anciently after the council of Nicea. To have a Trinity that is both one God and yet separate persons left a lot to explain: such as Father God without a body, while Jesus is spirit and flesh. How does God, who is of perfect substance, remain God when he forever takes upon himself imperfect flesh?

To answer it, they established that Jesus has a duality, similar to the duality in the Trinity of being both one God and separate persons. Yes, it still is confusing. But that is how this whole thing was decided and explained anciently (ca 400 AD, 80 years after the Nicea Council).

Of course, this becomes an example for many of us that the truth regarding the Godhead was lost anciently. Otherwise, they would not have needed both the Nicea and Chalcedony Councils.

[Dravin]

I think a good reason why we call the first two persons of the Trinity, Father and Son, is to show that they have a very intimate relationship with each other and because of that relationship, we too can partake of their closeness.

M.

So does this mean the Holy Ghost has a more distant relationship with the other two members of the trinity? Or is it a case of the Son came in physical form to us and so that relationship is highlighted for an example (Christ is our exemplar after all) even though the Holy Ghost shares the same intimacy of relationship?

[Connie]

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is/are spirit, and has existed always just as they are. They cannot have offspring, because if they could there would be more than One God.

So i have a question. What do other Christians think about Paul calling us the "offspring of God" in Acts 17? Is that symbolic too?

[Maureen]

...So, are you saying that calling Jesus the Son of God is just so that we can relate to their relationship, and come to trust Him more? Does this mean you believe there is no literal sonship, in the way man believes sons are made, by having offspring?

Yes, I do not believe in a literal sonship between God the Father and God the Son like us. I do not see Jesus as the "first born" in the literal sense. Since I do not know how God came to be, I accept that God has always been and his existence has always been a relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit before there was a "beginning".

M.

[Magen_Avot]

I think a good reason why we call the first two persons of the Trinity, Father and Son, is to show that they have a very intimate relationship with each other and because of that relationship, we too can partake of their closeness.

M.

Why not just say Christ is God's nephew? Can we not be just as close to Uncle God? It'd be easier if it was said that Christ is "like" a Son to God if a closeness is being shown rather than using words to denote actual offspring. You have a better explaination than I've heard before but I just can't wrap my head around it but your statement helped a lot.

[prisonchaplain]

Maybe a bit more definition on this relationship. A son is a child or offspring. If they have existed together forever as the same essence, how can one be the son when they are the same? I know this is what the Bible teaches. I'm looking for how one being can be the son of another being if those two beings are co-eternal. They are the same. Why the trickery with calling one a son?... No, in order to be one's son you have to be offspring. If that Sonship is literal. If it is figurative, then I'm OK with that as an explanation. I believe in the literal Sonship. I'm wondering how it can be literal if they have both always existed together. So, is "The Son" just His name? I'm suggesting that in order to be a Son you have to be the offspring of parents. Is this just for mortal men? If so, why confuse weak minds like mine and use a word that has a specific meaning of offspring, if, in fact, the Son is not offspring of the Father? It just muddies the water for me when I try to understand.

Is it something we can't understand? If so, why explain it as "Son" and not as "God made flesh?" I can go for that, it makes more sense. Say "God was manifest in the flesh" like it does in other parts of the Bible and forget "Son of God" if Jesus Christ is not God's literal offspring, or Son.

I decided to run all your questions together because they get at the same issue: How is Jesus God's Son? You have created an impossible conflict by insisting that a son must be an offspring--in essence (literally) a created being. You likely know that for traditionalists saying Jesus was created is heresy. Our reaction is compounded by our belief that God created out of nothing. So, to say Jesus is God's offspring, for us, is to say that he had a beginning--that he is not eternal.

By emphasizing that Jesus is the Father's ETERNAL Son, I obviously reject the idea that Jesus was created, or begun by the Father (we'll not speculate about a heavenly mother at this point).

Two simple points then: 1. Jesus is God's Son because that is the relationship these two persons share. 2. Jesus never BECAME the Father's Son, and so the circumstances are obviously different than between mortal beings. Why this has to matter I am not so sure. After all, we are mortal, and God is immortal. So why would we impose upon God definitions that only work for mortals?

[prisonchaplain]

Do you have any help to offer on how it can be a literal Father and Son relationship if they are co-eternal?

If not in the spiritual sense, then how in the physical sense? The Trinity does not have a physical body, so how can this Being be the literal Father of Jesus Christ? I understand how Mary is the literal mother, but how is God the literal Father of Jesus Christ?

If not literal Father, symbolic in some way? Is symbolic enough? Why call Jesus the Son of God if He is not the literal Son of God?

Of course an immortal God does not have a beginning. Traditionalists believe God created out of nothing. We do not believe in the premortal existence. So, if God is eternal, then an eternal Son would not have a beginning, and could not have BECOME the Son. He was not birthed. Jesus is God's Son, because that is their relationship--eternally. You seem to suggest that God is bound by mortal procedures. Why?

[maiku]

I appreciate the answers and what I'm getting from them is that it's not because He was created by the Father but rather it's the unified relationship the two share.

I like both of those answers but they still don't satisfy the question. Here's why.

A father begets his son, "creates" him in a sense. If the Father didn't beget the Son in some way but they still have a relationship of unity, wouldn't that make them brothers?

[prisonchaplain]

So, my personal opinion is that in order to believe in ideas such as God having no body and Jesus is not being His actual, literal, Son, but being the Son of God means something else, one must be indoctrinated into that belief by other than scripture.

I have never met a non-LDS Christian who believes that Father God literally impregnated a female deity, and that Jesus was birthed. The idea is shocking to traditionalists, and many here are aware that Ed Dekker played on that in rather infamous film.

Most Christians would say Jesus is the literal Son of God. I would. However, I would not mean what you mean. Jesus was not birthed into existence.

[Maureen]

So does this mean the Holy Ghost has a more distant relationship with the other two members of the trinity? Or is it a case of the Son came in physical form to us and so that relationship is highlighted for an example (Christ is our exemplar after all) even though the Holy Ghost shares the same intimacy of relationship?

I like StephenVH's description of the Holy Spirit's relationship with the Father and Son:

The Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son which is so real that it constitutes a distinct person.

I think Jesus' incarnation was very important because it allowed God to talk with his creation personally and express to them who he really was and is.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

Of course, this becomes an example for many of us that the truth regarding the Godhead was lost anciently. Otherwise, they would not have needed both the Nicea and Chalcedony Councils.

Councils arose in response to challenges to church teaching. These challenges may have started as questions, but some took their musings further, and developed heterodox teachings. As these gained a following, the church needed to respond.

I would be surprised to discover that modern LDS prophets were never moved to make clarifying teachings/pronouncements, as a result of questions, spiritual rumors, etc. Is that not one of the benefits of having living prophets?

[prisonchaplain]

So i have a question. What do other Christians think about Paul calling us the "offspring of God" in Acts 17? Is that symbolic too?

God created us. That is literal. Yet, no one suggests that God physically birthed us.

[Maureen]

Why not just say Christ is God's nephew? Can we not be just as close to Uncle God? It'd be easier if it was said that Christ is "like" a Son to God if a closeness is being shown rather than using words to denote actual offspring. You have a better explaination than I've heard before but I just can't wrap my head around it but your statement helped a lot.

I have nephews and I have a son and I love my nephews but my relationship with my son is much closer. I know my son so well. I have a much closer relationship with my children than I do with my nieces and nephews. If we, as God's creation, can understand the intimate relationship between Father and Son, it may serve to help us come to have our own intimate relationship with God.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

A father begets his son, "creates" him in a sense. If the Father didn't beget the Son in some way but they still have a relationship of unity, wouldn't that make them brothers?

Jesus relates to his Father as a father, not an uncle or brother. They are co-eternal, so Father did not birth Son, nor create him. The Bible gives us their relationship, and it is eternal. It did not come to be. All of these questions about how that is possible begin with the premise that God must be limited as we mortals are. Why?

[rameumptom]

And herein lies some of the confusion for those who are not Trinitarians (and many that are Trinitarians, too). They are Father and Son, but are not literal Father and Son, though Jesus is the literal Son of the Father. Yet, they are not two Gods, but one God. and this one God shares his persons and they have a relationship amongst themselves, even though they are but one God. Oh, and there's a Holy Ghost, who is not Father or Son, but also has an equal relationship of love with the other two, even though it may not seem as close because of the names given the three persons, yet it is the same, because God as one being cannot love one person of himself more or less than another.

Did I get that right?

It becomes even more difficult to consider when some sects of Christians believe the Bible to be literally correct and "God breathed." Suddenly, we see them having to explain the relationships within the Trinity as not literal, even though the Bible is to be taken literally by many of those who proclaim the word to be absolutely perfect.

Connie, And terms also become problematic. When Paul calls us "offspring" of God, or "children of the Father" or "heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ", he does not mean that literally in the Trinitarian sense. We are not made of the same substance as God, and can never be truly equal with God. So he promises to make us as close as he can to being like him, without sharing his substance. Even though he is God and all powerful that seems to be one thing he cannot do. And so we are not literal offspring of God, unless you consider it from the standpoint of him creating us from nothing, yet out of imperfect material.

I hope I've clarified everyone's confusion.

[rameumptom]

Councils arose in response to challenges to church teaching. These challenges may have started as questions, but some took their musings further, and developed heterodox teachings. As these gained a following, the church needed to respond.

I would be surprised to discover that modern LDS prophets were never moved to make clarifying teachings/pronouncements, as a result of questions, spiritual rumors, etc. Is that not one of the benefits of having living prophets?

I agree with your second sentence. The issue of Nicea and Chalcedon is that there were no prophets nor apostles to receive revelation regarding the issues. There was an ancient belief of God and Son being separate and distinct beings (not different persons in one substance). Origen noted that Jesus was a subordinate God to Father. Yet later bishops took this to other extremes. Arius taught that only the Father was God (one god only), and so the distinct Jesus was not God, but Lord. Athanasius also took the concept in a Hellenistic direction (only one perfect God, a perfect spirit substance), and combined the three Gods into one in the Trinity.

Because the early Church rejected continuing revelation, instead replacing it with a stagnant canon, all decisions were made via the philosophies of the men involved, and not by revelation through a prophet or apostle (Amos 3:7). Of course, the final decision was made by Constantinople, who was not a Christian at the time, and definitely was not inspired as a prophet to make the decision he made for the Church.

While our modern LDS prophets recognize there are some things for which we currently have no revealed answers, we strive to ensure not to make canonical decisions from philosophy, rather than revelation. There's a reason LDS have no creeds or non-scriptural/prophetic teachings that are imposed upon believers, wherein they must believe or go to hell. In fact, LDS believe all Christians (and many others) will be saved through Christ, even though many do not give us the same consideration.