Son of God?

[Traveler]

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.

I find this post rather alarming. That is the inference that the only means by which man has been given to understand, behold and even participate in the creation of life - is to be understood as divinely degrading (even repulsive) and contrary to G-dlyness and what G-d does or would even consider doing.

I find this attitude repulsive to my understanding of truth on so many fronts. For example the concept of whole and complete is very important to me in what is understood to be holy and sacred. The scriptures are quite clear that maleness and femaleness are divine attributes of G-d (see Genesis 1:27). It is also obvious that man and woman are not complete - without marriage covenant completing them and making them whole or holy.

More than anything I have ever read - your statement here, PC; convinces me that Traditional Christianity is indeed lost to a most abominable doctrine that has at its very core the seeds of the complete destruction (perdition) of the human family and future generations - children which is the inheritance of G-d.

Please understand PC - this is not directed towards you personally but towards a doctrine espoused by Ed Dekker that has found and established place.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

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.

But since we are only symbolically his children, will never be of the same substance as he, and will never literally be heirs of God, can we ever hope to have such a close and intimate relationship with God?

For me, the symbolizing that is required in the Athanasian and other creeds are just way beyond what I can accept. I feel one must twist and turn the teachings around in so many different ways to get the concept of Trinity to work. In fact, as I mentioned, this was true anciently too, wherein they had to convene other councils to resolve problems that the Nicea Council left unanswered (such as Jesus' nature being dual).

It turns God into a thing of confusion and absolutely so beyond anything and everything that he is absolutely incomprehensible. When Jesus is son, yet not literally a son; when we are sons, yet never of the same substance; when Christ is God, both with and without a resurrected body at the same time; we end up with something that really cannot be understood even in the slightest. We can only worship shadows and symbols of something that is beyond comprehending even in the smallest way.

Yet, scripture itself would have us believe that we can comprehend many things about God. Moses, Stephen and others saw God. Jesus and Paul taught we are also able to be just as Jesus is. John saw humans becoming divine and sitting on God's throne with him to rule and reign. We are to believe we are his offspring, his literal heirs, and can inherit all things He has. We are supposed to believe we can comprehend God the Father through Christ, the Son. Yet, if we can never comprehend the Son, how can we ever comprehend the Father?

And then Jesus tells us that eternal life is knowing the Father and the Son (John 17:3). Yet, how is that possible when many Christians maintain we cannot look upon God and that he is incomprehensible in any way?

I find great comfort in the LDS belief of the Godhead. It does not require contorting scripture into pure symbolism. It reveals the true and divine relationship between Father and Son. And it reveals our true nature as literal offspring of God.

[prisonchaplain]

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?

I'm sure there is a question in there somewhere. You seem to struggle to fit the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit into an understanding that matches that of human family. You want very much to squish the immortal square into the mortal circle, so to speak. When that proves difficult, you seem to imply that the answer is to reject traditional doctrine, since it does not fit into our mortal understanding.

Polytheism is easier to understand. I suppose deities giving birth can fit our mortal imaginations more easily, also. On the other hand, I do not mind a religion with truths that are greater than my thinking. I find comfort in the fact that God is more than I can imagine.

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.

It's an interesting connection you wish to make--insisting that those who believe the Bible is mostly literal, and perfect in it's Holy Ghost inspiration must then believe that Heavenly Father must have impregnanted a female deity to create Jesus, as if that is the only possible rendering of Jesus being the "literal" Son of God.

Silly me, I've always taken "literal" to mean "actual."

[rameumptom]

LDS believe that God physically created each one of us (including Jesus) as spirits. Whether there was a birthing event involved or not, we do not know. Some have supposed that there was, but mainly because in the early days of the Church, that was the only method they could imagine for birthing/creating to occur. Whether the mortal Jesus was physically formed via sex or in-vitro fertilization, or another method, we do not know. But we know there was some form of creation process involved that allowed a Father-Child relationship to begin.

Anciently, the term "eternal" did not mean what we think of today in our linear-time mentality. Eternities were seen as long cycles of time. Christ can be "eternal" with the Father in the concept that he has been with the Father since the beginning of this eternity.

That the Bible is the source for teaching us that Jesus is the son of God, that the Father impregnated Mary when the Holy Ghost came over her (insemination or some other form? who knows?).

I did not refer to those who think the Bible is "mostly literal" but those who believe it is 100% literal, God Breathed. I recognize, PC, that you are not one of these. Yet, there are many Protestants that do believe it. I find it interesting that those that do see it as God breathed tend to twist the scripture more than LDS, who seem to take such things as the birth and resurrection of Christ as literal. But issues such as the duality of Christ put a lot of strain, wear and tear into the term "literal", when used to mean "actual".

[Connie]

But our "mortal understanding" is what has been given us by God in order for us to understand things. Why would He not use that understanding, knowing that is how mortals think, in order to explain our relationship to Him and the relationship of the Godhead? Why would He wish to muddy the waters with such "human family" terms if they are not to be taken literally?

[prisonchaplain]

LDS believe that God physically created each one of us (including Jesus) as spirits. Whether there was a birthing event involved or not, we do not know. Some have supposed that there was, but mainly because in the early days of the Church, that was the only method they could imagine for birthing/creating to occur. Whether the mortal Jesus was physically formed via sex or in-vitro fertilization, or another method, we do not know. But we know there was some form of creation process involved that allowed a Father-Child relationship to begin.

You raise an excellent point here. 190 years ago, invitro fertilization was inconceivable. Is it not equally possible that how it is that eternal beings can relate to one another as Father and Son is in a manner that is very real (literal, actual), and yet inconceivable to us?

I did not refer to those who think the Bible is "mostly literal" but those who believe it is 100% literal, God Breathed.

Nobody believes this. God does not have wings. His anger is not a literal fire (though it can be). Those who argue for biblical literalism speak to the penchant of some to argue that the Bible is mostly parable, allegory, and symbolism. These literalists would insist that the Flood, Jonah and the Great Fish, etc. were historical accounts. Nevertheless, even the most ardent fundamentalists understand that the Bible contains some poetry, some allegory, and some parables.

I recognize, PC, that you are not one of these.

My guess is that I actually am. I do believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, is infallible in its original manuscripts, and that God has preserved its integrity. I also agree that in most cases a literal understanding is better than an interpretation that attempts to downplay miracles and the supernatural.

Yet, there are many Protestants that do believe it. I find it interesting that those that do see it as God breathed tend to twist the scripture more than LDS, who seem to take such things as the birth and resurrection of Christ as literal. But issues such as the duality of Christ put a lot of strain, wear and tear into the term "literal", when used to mean "actual".

Oh sure...and we are more "liberal" than Catholics because we do not believe that our juice and bread become the LITERAL body and blood of Christ at Communion (Eucharist).

Nevertheless, I will concede that LDS are more literal than most when it comes to believing in Christ being the God-birthed Son. Likewise in believing that the image of God in us is literal/physical.

[Guest gopecon]

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?

Maybe the problem PC and Maureen are having is the limitations of language. To be a "son" means something in English. Basically either one is born to parents, or adopted by parents to become a son in mortality. The issue gets even more confused when we throw "literal" in there.

"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. " - PC

Literal means reality, without significant symbolism. I understand what you are saying - mysteries of God, we don't fully understand it, etc. - but I think this is the primary reason for the confusion. You (traditional Christians) are using words that mean one thing every other time except when you use them to mean a different relationship of some sort.

I think the problem (from an LDS perspective) is that certain assumptions about God were made, and then the scriptures were interpreted to support those assumptions, rather than taking the plain meaning of the words at face value (a son is a family member created or taken in by a father/parents), or at least with a simple explanation (i.e. one means unity, not one God of 3 persons).

[prisonchaplain]

But our "mortal understanding" is what has been given us by God in order for us to understand things. Why would He not use that understanding, knowing that is how mortals think, in order to explain our relationship to Him and the relationship of the Godhead? Why would He wish to muddy the waters with such "human family" terms if they are not to be taken literally?

Are you asking why the Bible as anthropomorphisms? We describe God in the terms we understand. Even as a "baby Christian," at age 10, when I was told Jesus was the Son of God, I never imagined that the Father had a wife, and they gave birth to Jesus. I was not confused about this. I understood that Jesus was the Son, and God the Father. There was no need for me to digest it by figuring out how Jesus became the Son.

When I was told Jesus is my shelter in the time of storm, I did not find it necessary to believe that he was literally wood or bricks. I knew it meant He protects me.

We are attempting to describe the infinite and eternal in finite, mortal terms. It's not confusing to me to admit that our understanding can only go so far this side of eternity.

[prisonchaplain]

I think the problem (from an LDS perspective) is that certain assumptions about God were made, and then the scriptures were interpreted to support those assumptions, rather than taking the plain meaning of the words at face value (a son is a family member created or taken in by a father/parents), or at least with a simple explanation (i.e. one means unity, not one God of 3 persons).

We all come to scriptures with certain understandings. LDS also have added revelations to guide their Bible reading. Very few would intentionally twist scriptures, but we are prone to read literal when it bolsters our beliers, and to allow for explanations when an allegedly plain reading does not seem to mesh with our previous understandings.

As an example, many passages describe God as one. Learned LDS will often point to early Jewish belief in polytheism or henotheism, and allow that "one" may not be literal. Yet, when traditionalists say that the image of God in us is that of character and immortality, not physical, there is an insistence that reading be literal--a "plain reading" so to speak.

Suffice to say, we all do well to guard our hearts, and read our scriptures with the help of the Spirit, and with an openeness to whatever truths God wants to reveal to us. I love these forums for allowing these kinds of healthy discussions! :)

[prisonchaplain]

I find this post rather alarming. That is the inference that the only means by which man has been given to understand, behold and even participate in the creation of life - is to be understood as divinely degrading (even repulsive) and contrary to G-dlyness and what G-d does or would even consider doing.

I find this attitude repulsive to my understanding of truth on so many fronts. For example the concept of whole and complete is very important to me in what is understood to be holy and sacred. The scriptures are quite clear that maleness and femaleness are divine attributes of G-d (see Genesis 1:27). It is also obvious that man and woman are not complete - without marriage covenant completing them and making them whole or holy.

More than anything I have ever read - your statement here, PC; convinces me that Traditional Christianity is indeed lost to a most abominable doctrine that has at its very core the seeds of the complete destruction (perdition) of the human family and future generations - children which is the inheritance of G-d.

Please understand PC - this is not directed towards you personally but towards a doctrine espoused by Ed Dekker that has found and established place.

The Traveler

I find it refreshing that there are still people like you who think deeply on these doctrines, and who are not afraid to consider the ramifications of our beliefs. Your reaction is strong, but I take this as a sign of a tender heart that cares deeply for the things of God.

When will we tire of the "live and let live" mentality that says I will do/think what I want and you do and think what you want, and we'll put up with one another, but never truly care or engage.

So, please know that while you express passionate disagreement, I take it as a compliment that you share it as you do.

[Guest gopecon]

Are you asking why the Bible as anthropomorphisms? We describe God in the terms we understand. Even as a "baby Christian," at age 10, when I was told Jesus was the Son of God, I never imagined that the Father had a wife, and they gave birth to Jesus. I was not confused about this. I understood that Jesus was the Son, and God the Father. There was no need for me to digest it by figuring out how Jesus became the Son.

When I was told Jesus is my shelter in the time of storm, I did not find it necessary to believe that he was literally wood or bricks. I knew it meant He protects me.

We are attempting to describe the infinite and eternal in finite, mortal terms. It's not confusing to me to admit that our understanding can only go so far this side of eternity.

I understand symbolism and anthropomorphisms (Jesus is not an actual shelter), but the term Son is hard to understand outside of a familial way. A Heavenly Mother is not a highly emphasized doctrine in the Church, so like you when I heard about Jesus as the Son, I didn't really worry about how that came to be the case, but I probably did assume that there was some similarity to the familial relationship of Father and Son that we have in mortality. I will grant that creation is not necessarily required for sonship. I've adopted two of my children, so there was no role for me in the creation of their bodies, but I consider them just as much my children as the ones I did help to conceive.

[Connie]

When i was a kid and heard that God was Christ's Father, i knew there had to be a Mother as well for the ideal family situation is that of a loving father and a loving mother and certainly God would be living the ideal.

[Maureen]

But since we are only symbolically his children, will never be of the same substance as he, and will never literally be heirs of God, can we ever hope to have such a close and intimate relationship with God?

I don't see why I would need to be of the same substance as God to have a relationship with him. He is my creator, relationship already started with that. And yes, there is much hope in having a wonderful relationship with God.

For me, the symbolizing that is required in the Athanasian and other creeds are just way beyond what I can accept.

And that is your choice. The Trinity is not something you can accept, just like I would make a terrible Mormon, since I do not understand the Temple ceremony nor can I easily accept it.

It turns God into a thing of confusion and absolutely so beyond anything and everything that he is absolutely incomprehensible.

I disagree. God created us in his image, we have that connection, however incomplete it may be due to our sinfulness and God's holiness. I don't have to totally comprehend God to love and worship him, he doesn't expect me to. Even LDS on this forum admit that they cannot totally comprehend God in the here and now.

Yet, scripture itself would have us believe that we can comprehend many things about God. Moses, Stephen and others saw God. Jesus and Paul taught we are also able to be just as Jesus is. John saw humans becoming divine and sitting on God's throne with him to rule and reign. We are to believe we are his offspring, his literal heirs, and can inherit all things He has.

I agree with most of what you write here, but I'm sure we interpret some of it differently.

We are supposed to believe we can comprehend God the Father through Christ, the Son. Yet, if we can never comprehend the Son, how can we ever comprehend the Father?

But that was part of the reason for the Son's incarnation, so that in knowing the Son we would also know the Father.

And then Jesus tells us that eternal life is knowing the Father and the Son (John 17:3). Yet, how is that possible when many Christians maintain we cannot look upon God and that he is incomprehensible in any way?

I think you are exaggerating. Just like LDS, traditional Christians believe that we can know God to the best of our abilities, but we cannot totally comprehend God. He is after all, God.

I find great comfort in the LDS belief of the Godhead. It does not require contorting scripture into pure symbolism. It reveals the true and divine relationship between Father and Son. And it reveals our true nature as literal offspring of God.

You paint a picture that traditional Christianity is evil for contorting scripture while the LDS Christians know everything about the Father and Son. Both are not true.

M.

[Forget-Me-Not]

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.

And I don't know that the non-LDS I know who see God as the literal Father of Jesus are thinking in terms of pre-creation or the pre-birth of Jesus onto the earth, but rather that the babe born to Mary was literally begotten of God, in the literal, biological, genetic, offspring sense.

[prisonchaplain]

The Holy Spirit miraculously caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus. He had no earthly father. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. We believe this. It's just that we believe Jesus was the Son of God beforehand.

[Guest gopecon]

So we are clear, while our understanding of how Jesus came to be the Son may differ (or what exactly that Sonship entails), we also believe that He was the Son before He was conceived in Mary.

[Forget-Me-Not]

But our "mortal understanding" is what has been given us by God in order for us to understand things. Why would He not use that understanding, knowing that is how mortals think, in order to explain our relationship to Him and the relationship of the Godhead? Why would He wish to muddy the waters with such "human family" terms if they are not to be taken literally?

I agree. Maybe I'd be considered too simplistic in my thinking by some, but on this matter and many others I can't help think of the words from Lord's prayer, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."

[bytor2112]

The Holy Spirit miraculously caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus. He had no earthly father. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. We believe this. It's just that we believe Jesus was the Son of God beforehand.

We believe this as well. We believe that Jesus, then Jehovah, was the first born of the Father and our elder brother before this mortal probation.

[Justice]

I have read every word of every post with eager anticipation. When I saw there was now 5 pages I actually got excited.

So many things to comment on. First and foremost, I'm glad, appreciative, and thanks to everyone for keeping this a civil discussion. I have learned that if you go into a discussion trying to get agreement from the other party, instead of understanding, the discussion will generally fail. Having said that...

That Jesus is the literal Son of the Father sinks deep into my soul. I believe, as I have stated, that this is the primary message of the Bible, that God (the Father) sent His Son into the world to save it.

I know all Christians have to believe this. I'm not questioning whether you do, just how. I know there are many ways to interpret the words, and I'm sure many ways I haven't even considered. I appreciate those of you who have helped me understand different intepretations other than mine.

In keeping with the spirit of the purpose for this thread, I offer a scripture.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Let's throw the word begotten into the mix. How can the words begotten and son be used together in a symbolic way?

Needless to say, this word is my primary evidence to back my belief that Jesus Christ was literally the Son of God.

For those who believe that it is a description of their relationship, and not literal as men understand, how do you get around the word begotten? Doesn't that make it literal, at least physically in mortality?

More thoughts to chew on as you ponder: Jesus' physical body had a mother. Doesn't that show God's intentions as far as following the pattern of "offspring" as we understand it? God could have simply "created" Jesus without a mother, in the same way He created Him without a physical specimin for a father. If not literal, then He could have created Him like the traditional belief about how Adam was created and still called Him His literal Son... if the "not offspring" understaning is your belief.

Also, I don't want to get too wordy in one post, but a lot has been said, and I have had similar thoughts as many of the posters regarding several issues.

I feel deeply like Traveler, that if Jesus Christ is not the literal Son (once we figure out how that is) then it strikes at the very heart of the Bible's primary message as delivered to the shepherds.

Why not just say "Jesus Christ is God manifest the flesh?" Why even say Son at all if it is not literal? God knows how we view sons; He taught this to Adam and Eve. Why use a word we equate to something if He could just say "Jesus Christ is Me manifest in the flesh?"

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Just follow this line of teaching and doctrine in the Bible and it would be just as personal of a relationship, if not more, than saying Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Just say He is God Himself in the flesh.

These are ideas and thoughts I have as I ponder these things, as I have a very logical and analytical mind. I am trained to think through scenarios and as many possible outcomes in any given situation. I tend to think outside the box.

I know it's a lot to discuss. Maybe just pick and respond to one topic at a time?

In advance, thank you very much for your input, especially PC and Maureen, I am very appreciative of your patience and understanding of my inability to understand, and trying to share with me ways you understand your beilefs.

[Forget-Me-Not]

That Jesus is the literal Son of the Father sinks deep into my soul.

Mine as well. Simply and beautifully expressed. It has also been helpful to me getting a better understanding of how others believe. Thank you for starting this thread. :)

[prisonchaplain]

So we are clear, while our understanding of how Jesus came to be the Son may differ (or what exactly that Sonship entails), we also believe that He was the Son before He was conceived in Mary.

Thank you. I do not know who it was that raised the idea that Jesus became the Son through his birth on earth...but I think this was speculation about what others believe. I'm not aware of any group that actually takes this view, though.

[volgadon]

As an example, many passages describe God as one. Learned LDS will often point to early Jewish belief in polytheism or henotheism, and allow that "one" may not be literal. Yet, when traditionalists say that the image of God in us is that of character and immortality, not physical, there is an insistence that reading be literal--a "plain reading" so to speak.

Actually, I try to see how terms were used and understood. There is plenty of evidence showing that "one" was used to denote a special relationship, rather tha a cold, hard, precise mathematical formulation. The "image" (tzelem and demuth) was believed to be a corporeal one by ancient Jews, and the etymology of the words support it.

The "plain reading" is not necessarily literal, but it is the one intended by the text.

[Forget-Me-Not]

Thank you. I do not know who it was that raised the idea that Jesus became the Son through his birth on earth...but I think this was speculation about what others believe. I'm not aware of any group that actually takes this view, though.

Oh, might have been me, but if it was, that's not quite what I meant. Also, I should say I know far less about what groups believe than I do individuals. I'm sure there are individuals who think back past the birth of Jesus and back past creation in their belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God then, too, and that God sent His Son into the world, not only that Jesus became His Son upon his earthly birth, or because of it, though how far they take that thought, I don't know.

And whether they take that thought to the conclusion of Jesus having a Heavenly Mother, I don't know, but personally I haven't known any with whom I've had such discussions who have thought much about it that thoroughly. I would imagine that conclusion would also be much more natural to a child, such as Connie mentioned with herself, though my conversations have only been with adults and none have expressed having that perspective, that is, none of the non-LDS I've discussed such with. I have known LDS who became LDS in part because that was a core belief they held before they knew about the LDS faith.

[prisonchaplain]

The short answer to the question of what it means that Jesus is "the only begotten" Son of God is that the verse tends to be rendered "one and only" in more modern translations. Then again, we are somewhat stuck on this matter because of our differing understandings of creation. LDS believe that creation is the fashioning of matter that is eternally existent. Traditionalists believe that God created out of nothing. Thus, to argue that Jesus was birthed by Father immediately puts us in a logical inconsistency. Jesus cannot be eternal if he was created, therefore we assume he was not, and we do not worry about the fine nuances of how we are like God, or how Jesus can be God's Son if God did not birth him.

I did some googling on the word begotten, and found traditional defenses of Christ deity and his equality with the Father. The main targets seemed to be Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses, who use verses like John 3:16 to say Jesus is not God, or is a powerful being created by God.

I understand that you do not believe in creation out of nothing. However, we do. So reconciling your belief to our doctrine is much harder than you imagine.

[Justice]

I deeply appreciate your honest and well-though out answer, PC. Sometimes "I don't know" is the best or only answer we have. I respect a person who is willing to say "I don't know" over one who turns the tables and begins to attack the hard-to-understand beliefs of others. If I were honest, I'd have to admit there are many of my beliefs that boil down to "I don't know."

One thing I will disagree with you on, however, is that it's not harder than I can imagine, becaue I have tried for much longer than most people do. I ask myself, and others, questions that others don't even seem think of. Before I ask others I have given it my best effort. I haven't been able to reconcile some things over decades of trying. So, I imagine it's pretty hard.

I'll start another thread on "creation out of nothing" that ties into this discussion.