God was once a man?!


chasingthewind
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, zil said:

Some have theorized that he meant the intelligence of man (our core being) rather than the spirit (as in spirit child of God), which seems more consistent to me.  But, the simple fact is, we just don't know.  We can speculate all day long, and in the end, we'll all laugh at our former ignorance. ;)

We'll probably look like this when we finally learn the reality of things. 

IMG_2511.GIF.9b0b93efe5a57ff0e8721ae6597d2784.GIF

Edited by Snigmorder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

So, I did some quick digging around. Most non-LDS Christians would simply say that the word creation packs within it the idea "out of nothing." Of course, the historic development of the doctrine of creation is messier than that. The bottom line is that Muslim and historic Christian doctrine overwhelmingly favors creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). Yet, there are some historic Christian thinkers and writings that seem to favor a basic eternal matter. Jewish teaching is even more mixed, though it seems that the "out of nothing" side is more prevalent. Islam is completely on the side of "out of nothing" creation. The majority does not win, but there is something compelling, for those of us followers of the three Abrahamic religions, without the LDS sources, in seeing that most of our teachers, thinkers, and expositors have come to the conclusion that God made the world by his word, out of nothing.  On the other hand, I can also see that, even apart from the LDS scriptures, there are some sound reasons for believing there is an eternal matter/substance to the universe.

My miniscule understanding of particle physics makes me lean towards the conclusion that particle physics supprts the ex nihilo theory. According to particle physics the entire known universe is completely full of sub-atomic particles continously and spontaneously bursting in and out of existence. And everything in the entire universe is ultimately made up of sub-atomic particles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

My miniscule understanding of particle physics makes me lean towards the conclusion that particle physics supprts the ex nihilo theory. According to particle physics the entire known universe is completely full of sub-atomic particles continously and spontaneously bursting in and out of existence. And everything in the entire universe is ultimately made up of sub-atomic particles.

Yes, we keep hoping you'll spontaneously burst out of existence, and yet, here you are. <sigh>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

So, I did some quick digging around. Most non-LDS Christians would simply say that the word creation packs within it the idea "out of nothing." Of course, the historic development of the doctrine of creation is messier than that. The bottom line is that Muslim and historic Christian doctrine overwhelmingly favors creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). Yet, there are some historic Christian thinkers and writings that seem to favor a basic eternal matter. Jewish teaching is even more mixed, though it seems that the "out of nothing" side is more prevalent. Islam is completely on the side of "out of nothing" creation. The majority does not win, but there is something compelling, for those of us followers of the three Abrahamic religions, without the LDS sources, in seeing that most of our teachers, thinkers, and expositors have come to the conclusion that God made the world by his word, out of nothing.  On the other hand, I can also see that, even apart from the LDS scriptures, there are some sound reasons for believing there is an eternal matter/substance to the universe.

Depends.  Creation out of nothing is normally more specific to evangelicals or more hard core Christians.  When we read the Bible though..

Quote

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

It does not say he did it out of nothing, and in fact says the earth existed...but was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

KJV Genesis 1:1-2 by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

My miniscule understanding of particle physics makes me lean towards the conclusion that particle physics supprts the ex nihilo theory. According to particle physics the entire known universe is completely full of sub-atomic particles continously and spontaneously bursting in and out of existence. And everything in the entire universe is ultimately made up of sub-atomic particles.

Aren't those particles manifesting from energy and turning back into energy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Answering this would exceed my miniscule knowledge but didnt Einstein conclude that matter and energy are basically the same?

My understanding is that energy can convert to matter and matter can convert energy and that the "void" of space is full of energy. I don't know how the two are differentiated, I would assume behavior.

 I also don't understand what a "virtual particle" is, but that's apparently what they're referring to when they talk about particles coming from nothing. I don't know if they Think of these particles as energy or as matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Depends.  Creation out of nothing is normally more specific to evangelicals or more hard core Christians.  When we read the Bible though..

It does not say he did it out of nothing, and in fact says the earth existed...but was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

KJV Genesis 1:1-2 by the way.

The traditional reading of this passage--and even Catholics would predominantly agree, according to what I read--is that even the first two verses are chronological. God was in the beginning. Then he created the heavens and the earth. In their initial state of creation, this heaven and earth were without form, void and dark. Then, as the chapter continues, God keeps speaking, and the world keeps developing. As he progresses in creating, he repeatedly admires his work, saying it is good...it is good, and then with us, 'very good.'

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/creation-ex-nihilo

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On August 15, 2017 at 8:32 AM, prisonchaplain said:

Well...there is that. Still, the struggle is if the Father was once a man, then God seems to be changing. As an example, we believe that God has never said, "This idea just occurred to me..."

Replace the words "a man" with "flesh" and your explanation raises my theologically non-traditional eyebrows.  I then wait for the interesting (no convincing allowed) interfaith discussion to ensue.  

On August 15, 2017 at 0:21 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Then I am back to the distinction between creation and Creator. Why did God make that distinction? Perhaps all that is incorporeal is found within him. All else is creation. 

Having said that, I get your idea that we tend to create/make things from out of ourselves, so why wouldn't God do likewise?  I can offer speculative answers all day long, but your real point is that we might want to consider that God did make creation from out of himself, and therefore there might be an eternal matter. 

If God the father was born of Mary then which is he, Creator or creation.  Can he not be both.  If you say that he can be both then where is the distinction?

On August 15, 2017 at 0:12 PM, prisonchaplain said:

I want to inquire about this first. Traditional Christian teaching is that God is not corporeal. Jesus became God in the flesh. Before that, even he was spirit. Islam and Judaism concur, to my understanding.

As for why God created a universe with limits, it has always been in his mind to do so. Perhaps this is why traditional Christian teaching divides reality into two parts:  Creator and Creation.

So did God go from incorporeal (all that is incorporeal is found within him) to corporeal (God in the flesh(did this make him creator and creation?)) and now he is back to incorporeal(traditional Christian teaching is that God is not corporeal)?  If this is the case then God seems to be changing. is this kind of change allowed under the no change clause? How does this not fall under the "this idea just occurred to me. . . " umbrella?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is as difficult for a sectarian to comprehend the Father was once as Christ was (a mortal man on earth) as it is for a Mormon (born in the faith) to comprehend the Trinity.  So, if Christ was the Father (an unchanging being), then how was he mortal when he could never have been mortal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On August 15, 2017 at 0:50 AM, chasingthewind said:

At first I thought it was blasphemous to think Heavenly Father had a past history as a mortal man.  But once I learned man is an uncreated being in D&C 93 then it didn't seem like a big deal anymore.  Pretty good example of 'milk before meat', don't you think?

 

I grew up in the Baptist Church, shortly after my Baptism I heard someone reading from D&C 132, the verse, "...and then yet shall be gods, because he have no end". (I hope I quoted it without error) I slowly raised my hand to ask for the nearest exit (as I would have to retrieve my wife and small children first)  :), and began to ask many questions. It was while the Church still had split meetings, and it was a small Military Branch in (what was then) "West Germany". My wife and I were only converts in the three plus years there, so everyone was willing to take all the time that was needed to answer question. They even remained after Church to help me understand. Over time and having taken Bible correspondence courses since the age of 11 (by mail back in the 60's of course), and having even began teaching or preaching from the Baptist pulpit at the age of 19, I already had a head start. 

The scriptures that came to mind (I type everything from an IPad due to serious back injury) were the scriptures that spoke of Jesus Christ, or how "...he learned obedience through the things that he suffered". How he "...became the author of our eternal salvation". How, to have "...seen him is to see the Father". And how "...all that he did, he had SEEN the Father do" (too paraphrase), and how all names attributed to the Father are given unto the Son (not a quote). Since it is Jesus Christ whom we all know, was in the image of the "invisible God", and "learned line upon line and precept upon precept", just as we do, and just as the "Father did", by extension it seems a short lead (or for others a massive leap of Faith) to other such beliefs. This does not mean, that God the Father can be measured in time as we know it, as he is "from everlasting to everlasting", a Biblical term that suggests that "everlasting" is not necessarily "Eternal". But another topic for another thread.

Where we do err is to suppose that "He the Father" or "Jesus Christ" we're just like us in every way, as Jesus Christ lived a perfect life. Jesus Christ was chosen from the beginning as the "Lamb of God", that Jesus Christ "overcame the world", where we can "overcome the world", by being made perfect through the "Grace" or the "Atonement of Jesus Christ". A point we should always remember, "least any man boast" that he is "saved by works", because everyone who accepts Jesus Christ is "saved by Grace alone", and it is "Grace Alone" that even allows our works to earn us great reward. Too often when others say we are "saved by Grace", in an effort to teach the entire plan of Salvation, we lose them. We should agree "quickly" to use a word of the Apostle Paul, in context of "agreeing with thy enemy quickly", or even those who might see us as their enemy. Jesus Christ who lived a perfect life, he was without blemish and did wonderful and miraculous things, and to use his words, "...all that I do, I have seen the Father do". All of these things and all of the words and doctrines are not "Mormon Doctrine", but "His" words and doctrines. Even the teaching that we shall "become gods" (little "g") or more to the point that, "we are all gods and children of the most high". It is also important to note that the term used in D&C 132, says that "we will be gods because we have no end", an important qualifying remark. From this point it expands, all other beliefs come from the King Follet Discourse, a sermon that certainly is an underpinning of belief, but not canonized scripture. Anyway, I seem to be rambling, to quote from the Movie Lincoln,  "as the old Preacher said, I'd write shorter sermons, but once I get started I am too lazy to quit". 

Disclamier: Due to a back injury, 99% of what I write is done with an iPad held up with one thumb on my legs while in bed or in a special chair. So misspellings and errors in quotes occur more oftent than I would like. It is difficult (near impossible) to sit in a straight back chair and use my laptop. Also difficult to put it down and go though every scripture, so I have to use my memory for the scriptures I quote. So forgive any errors.

Bill "Papa" Lee

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Faapefuoe said:

Replace the words "a man" with "flesh" and your explanation raises my theologically non-traditional eyebrows.  I then wait for the interesting (no convincing allowed) interfaith discussion to ensue.  

If God the father was born of Mary then which is he, Creator or creation.  Can he not be both.  If you say that he can be both then where is the distinction?

So did God go from incorporeal (all that is incorporeal is found within him) to corporeal (God in the flesh(did this make him creator and creation?)) and now he is back to incorporeal(traditional Christian teaching is that God is not corporeal)?  If this is the case then God seems to be changing. is this kind of change allowed under the no change clause? How does this not fall under the "this idea just occurred to me. . . " umbrella?

Love your post! Great questions. The first one I do not understand though. What do you see the implications being of God have once been flesh vs. having once been a man? To the second, Jesus was and is and will always be the Son. Yet, he did create and is described by Isaiah as "Everlasting father." So, he was not created. The enfleshment of the Son is not considered an act of creation in any theology I've encountered. It was a process Jesus submitted to. The Son did take on flesh--become corporeal. In fact, this is why he left us, and sent the Holy Spirit. So, would this be considered a change to Jesus, and what does this mean for the unchanging nature of God? My speculation is that since God is timeless, than the enfleshment of Jesus has been an eternal part God--it's always been in his mind, and so always part of who he is. This last answer is mine alone, and I offer it more as an idea to consider than as some kind of final pronouncement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 0:36 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Just a couple thoughts on this: 

If humans have always existed, it seems to us that God becomes less. God making us out of nothing seems much bigger than God crafting/molding our eternal intelligence.

--- I hope this is not a thread derail. 

Though you and I have discussed this topic before – I would remind you and others that I disagree that your objections that you give are all that consistent.   For example – if G-d created us from nothing pre-existing how can G-d not be responsible and complicit at least to some degree in the differences that define why some are more religious (good) than others.   If we had nothing to do with our creation, then we are only what G-d made us to be.  Since G-d is in control of creating us with full knowledge of what we would choose to do – not that we could choose only that he created us to so choose by how he created us.

Quote

If I become what God is, then won't I kind of leave him? Yes, we may visit, but I'm off to become the God of my world--just like my kids will go off to become wives and mothers. I relate to them differently as teens than I did when they were kids. I'll relate differently once they become different, too.

I also feel that the argument that you have created to demonstrate problems should we become like G-d is backwards and upside down.  What you have done is make an argument that would apply only if G-d became like us – not if we were to become like G-d.  I am concerned when arguments like this are used that you may not really understand G-d and his nature – especially if such ideas are widely accepted as true concerning the nature of G-d in the congregations where you worship.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Traveler Whether God created us out of pre-existing matter, or out of nothing, would not seem to impact the belief we have that he created us with free will. His foreknowledge of our choices is not the same is predestination. Many Christian churches, including mine, reject the doctrine of Predestination. As for your second point, God made us in his image, so I surmised that children leaving their parents would be similar to how we would leave the Father, were we to become what he is. It would be helpful to me if you would simply clarify where you think I my line of reasoning falters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Traveler Whether God created us out of pre-existing matter, or out of nothing, would not seem to impact the belief we have that he created us with free will. His foreknowledge of our choices is not the same is predestination. Many Christian churches, including mine, reject the doctrine of Predestination. As for your second point, God made us in his image, so I surmised that children leaving their parents would be similar to how we would leave the Father, were we to become what he is. It would be helpful to me if you would simply clarify where you think I my line of reasoning falters.

 

Thanks so much for the response.  The point is if G-d created our will – it does not matter that it is called free will or not; just that it is 100% G-d’s creation without a smidgen of our input.  We know from simple observation that individual will is different.  Why is one more acceptable to religious suggestions?? Thus, I see a gross contradiction when you say that your faith rejects Predestination but believes we have no input into the creation of our own will – how can we say it is even our own will, let alone free will if we had nothing to do with what it is?  It is not ours any more than anything else G-d has created for our use.  The only possibility for self-determination under such belief is after all the necessary and important parameters have been determined for us – which invalidates the assumption of “free” or a self-created (another word for self determined or free) will.

We also know from observation that new stars, solar systems and even galaxies are being created millions of light years away from our tiny little planet.    The point being that if G-d is capable of creating other worlds millions and even billions of light years away and still be mindful (present) when a bird dies here on earth – that such a being likewise so as him that our connections, bounds, associations, understandings, appreciations anything else so similar to him would only be improved – not as you seem to insist to be diminished - out of sight out of mind kind of thing.   It seems to me that it is like saying if someone breaks the law we believe they should be put to death – but we do not believe in capital punishment.  :confused:  It appears to me you say you believe a doctrine but then believe something that completely contridicts it???

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, @Traveler. This last post clarifies greatly. Interestingly, I see in your paragraphs what you see in my beliefs. I won't call it contradiction, but tension. You uphold free will (or its LDS cousin, free agency) so strongly, that the doctrine of humanity being created out of nothing seems to contradict it. Similarly, your eloquent description of the Father's omnipresence and omniscience might seem to counter our free will too. After all, if the goal of exaltation is that we become as God is, wouldn't his hovering over us take away from that?

My take is no to both. Creation out of nothing does not contradict God's ability to create our wills truly free. I simply believe he can do that. Our lack of input in our making does no more to take away from our liberty than our lack of input in who our parents were and where we would be born (environmentally, as well as location). Likewise, how God connects with us as we rule and reign with him, and enjoy the glories of our glorified bodies will not suffocate our sense of individualism and autonomy, within his kingdom.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Thank you, @Traveler. This last post clarifies greatly. Interestingly, I see in your paragraphs what you see in my beliefs. I won't call it contradiction, but tension. You uphold free will (or its LDS cousin, free agency) so strongly, that the doctrine of humanity being created out of nothing seems to contradict it. Similarly, your eloquent description of the Father's omnipresence and omniscience might seem to counter our free will too. After all, if the goal of exaltation is that we become as God is, wouldn't his hovering over us take away from that?

My take is no to both. Creation out of nothing does not contradict God's ability to create our wills truly free. I simply believe he can do that. Our lack of input in our making does no more to take away from our liberty than our lack of input in who our parents were and where we would be born (environmentally, as well as location). Likewise, how God connects with us as we rule and reign with him, and enjoy the glories of our glorified bodies will not suffocate our sense of individualism and autonomy, within his kingdom.

 

How can we say something is ours if it is created by G-d?  You may answer that it is ours because he gave it to us.  But even if he gives it to us; it does not make us responsible for its creation or the result of what happesn because it was created – especially if the results of its creation were known long before it was given to us.  But it gets even worse (from a responsibility standpoint) if we do not understand the full and complete results and consequences of our will but G-d does and yet we are fully and only accountable and responsible (even damned) but G-d has no complicity for what he alone created – once again a known result before such creation that would not have happened had his creation been less flawed and every such flaw was by his design and intent.  Everyone should be accountable for what they create – shouldn’t they?  Unless, perhaps, they really did not understand what they were doing?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Traveler Throughout our lives we take responsibility for what we did not make:  wife, children, house, car, dog, etc. We can be held liable for what happens with them. Similarly, If God creates us with options throughout our lives, I'm not seeing that we have to have a pre-mortality contract before we take responsibility for what we do with what we're given. I understand why such a contract would seem to add to our sense of duty, but not that it is a necessity.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

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