LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[zaffiroborant]

Yes, I do. I think women increase in their love for their child because of the difficulty of their having carried the baby and had childbirth in the midst of pain.

I have never, ever, heard any woman I know express anything remotely like your “theory”. If what you “think” is correct then nothing should be done to alleviate the pain of childbirth because that would decrease the love women have for their children. And it would follow that adopted children would be in real danger of deficient motherly love since motherly love is a product of the mother’s suffering in bringing the child into this world. And of course fathers can not possibly love their children as much as mothers since they did not suffer through the carrying and birthing of their children.
I “think” your theory devalues the child, placing his value (in the eyes of your hypothetical mother) in her own personal suffering and not in the inherent value of the child himself. I also “think” this theory of yours is a direct product of the LDS focus on “the mother” and motherhood in general as the “nurturer” while the father is relegated to “providing”, an outside activity that has no connection to the child’s world.

 

[Stephen168]

I suppose that I might as well try and understand your thinking.

1. Do you think Adam’s having to “work the soil” is a “curse”?
2. Do you think women’s greater “pain of childbirth” is a “curse”?
3. Do you think Adam and Eve had a “tenuous relationship with each other”?
4. Do you think the “Tree of Knowledge” is “pride”?
5. If so, is knowledge not to be sought?
6. Are you taught these kinds of things, or do they flow from other teachings and become the logical product of those teachings?

1. Yes, 2) Yes, 3) we don’t know 4) yes, 5) knowledge is to be sought 6) no.
   And for Mormons except for ‘5’ the answers would be the opposite because their answers flow from other teachings (6).

 

[catholic-rcia]

I can see why it would be confusing, but it isn’t really. We believe Jesus was God before He was born. He was mortal like us, and He continues to be God. Jesus even hints at it in John 5:19, 20

19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel

What did Jesus see the Father do?

So in other words, you don’t understand and just made something up…? The uncaused cause? That contradicts your previous sentence that nothing exists that does not have a cause for its existence.
Do you believe God is a God of order? or do you believe He lives in chaos? If you believe He is a God of order, then there are rules, whether He made them or they exist independently.

We believe that God exists with an eternal perspective…He can see the past as if it is happening now, He can see the future as if it has already happened. Past, present and future is one eternal round for Him.
How this is, I haven’t a clue but I do not reject it.
LDS teach that the Father and Son both have a body of flesh and bone because that has been shown to be true.

The same as with us, we don’t know how He does things, other than by His power. We don’t believe a physical body has to place limitations on God, that is something others place upon Him.
These are concepts that go beyond our understanding, but we believe it to be true…just as you do with your beliefs.

Jesus became man, He took on flesh to save us, as God to die for us. This is also easy from what I have learned and know by the Holy Spirit; simply He was the perfect man although not created like us, in the perfect grace of His Father. Of course as a perfect man he could would nothing on His own, in His own accord as He was One with His Father. He is not a fallen man like us. He is what we can be through Him, just as what Adam and Eve were before the fall. As they were created in His image, (Grace & Loved) but as created beings, created through Jesus they tried to do everything for themselves, one was to gain wisdom. They were tempted by Satan, they went for it and the chord of perfect grace was severed(The Great Apostasy) / Original sin.

This is Chritsianity, anything else would be of an other gospel.
Jesus is our Creator, Lord and God. We are sinners in transaction. Being carried back to the garden of Edan The Cross

 

[scipio337]

Do tell, what is the interpretation of the term “firstborn”? What was the word used that was translated as such. What would have been a better English term to use than “firstborn”?

Take Colossians 1:15. The phrase used is "protokos pases ktiseos, not “born” in the literal sense (or from God having “Biblical knowledge” of Mary), the translation is “first taken”. The meaning here is not an order of birth, but the rights and authority and inheritance of Christ.

Are we creatures? or are we children? If Jesus became one of us, then indeed He became a creature.
I don’t buy into the bit about being a creature. I am a child of God, as all mankind is. We are not creatures, but children. Now I ask you, can a Son of God redeem? Furthermore, not just any Son of God, but the Only Begotten Son of God, can He save? I say: “yes He can”. What do you say?

We are CREATIONS. Therein lies the inherit difference between LDS beliefs and “Orthodox”. In Mormonism, Christ is the the same type of being we are, different only in degree (he is the eldest, and “most progressed” of God’s literal “children”). In Catholic and “Orthodox” belief, there is a fundamental difference between God and his creations. God is not a created being. We are.

Its outlined pretty well in this Maxwell Institute comparison of Theosis and Exaltation:

The doctrine of theosis presupposes that there is a fundamental distinction between uncreated being and created being. God, that is, the three divine persons who are the one God, are understood to be uncreated and eternal. God always has been divine and always will be divine. Human persons, on the other hand, are created from nothing—creatio ex nihilo. They are forever dependent on God for existence. Thus, the divine nature, the nature of God, is fundamentally different from human nature, the nature of human persons. In fact, one can speak of an ontological divide or chasm separating the two: the former is unoriginate, the latter is originate.

The doctrine of exaltation presupposes that God is of the same species as human persons. There is no distinction between uncreated and created beings or persons since all persons, divine as well as human, are uncreated. In other words, intelligence, the core or essence of every person (whether divine or human) is self-existent and eternal, uncreated and uncreatable. Through the process of spirit birth, intelligences are clothed by divine parents with spirit bodies and become autonomous, conscious selves. And just as with human children in relation to their human parents, the spirit children of divine parents possess the innate capacity, as a fact of their spirit birth, to progress and grow up into the likeness of their divine parents.

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=7&chapterID=63

By the LDS line of thinking, it is Christ’s “progession” that allows him to save, not his nature as the living God, and its something we will do after exaltation.

 

[catholic-rcia]

We all should know Paul Harvey. he tends to keep things simple

This story he tells sums up Christmas pretty well as far as how Christians perceive and receive it.
I believe it is perfect for this conversation. Flyonwall, Parker I am putting forth the joy that John the Baptist felt while still in his mothers womb. Right now the joy that comes with a full understanding of Chritsmas, what it means to be Christian.

Just hit the play video with the bird on this page
search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yhs-avg-chrome&type=yahoo_avg_hs2-tb-web_chrome_us&p=man+and+the+birds+paul+harvey

To all of those LDS here I would suggest the midnight Christmas Mass
This is where I found Christmas for the first time in life 12 years ago.
Christ-Mass. We have quit a few LDS here in the valley that attend. Does not matter at that point…well anything…it is just good to come together to celebrate the birth of Christ together.
This is Christmas

 

[SteveVH]

I can see why it would be confusing, but it isn’t really. We believe Jesus was God before He was born. He was mortal like us, and He continues to be God. Jesus even hints at it in John 5:19, 20
19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel

What did Jesus see the Father do?

Jesus saw the Father do everything He has ever done. Jesus does nothing of Himself because He cannot act independently of the Father. This is because they are truly One. Where the Father is, there is the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where the Son is, there are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is, there are the Father and the Son. The verses you quoted show the unity of the Trinity. I would think this would be more difficult to understand if you believed they were separate beings, but they aren’t. Jesus did not become human until the incarnation. At the same time He never lost His divinity. Jesus didn’t have to go to “God school” to learn how to be divine. This is a complete misinterpretation.

So in other words, you don’t understand and just made something up…? The uncaused cause? That contradicts your previous sentence that nothing exists that does not have a cause for its existence.
Do you believe God is a God of order? or do you believe He lives in chaos? If you believe He is a God of order, then there are rules, whether He made them or they exist independently.

First of all, the uncaused cause is only logical. The nature of the world points to One who did not have a beginning. It does not contradict God’s eternal nature but rather requires it. You need to think about it a little further.

Of course God is a God of order. It is one of the proofs that God exists. The fact that God created everything and gave it order does not mean that He is subject to the laws He created. He is above the physical world and lives outside of space and time. No, He is not subject to the laws of of physics. Do you remember when He made the sun stand still? Do you remember the three days of darkness when he blotted out the sun to show Pharaoh his power of the Egyptian gods?

We believe that God exists with an eternal perspective…He can see the past as if it is happening now, He can see the future as if it has already happened. Past, present and future is one eternal round for Him.
How this is, I haven’t a clue but I do not reject it.
LDS teach that the Father and Son both have a body of flesh and bone because that has been shown to be true.

These are the types of terms that make one begin to twist and turn. You believe that God exists with an “eternal perspective”? What does that mean? Do you believe He is eternal or not? Did He have a beginning or not?

Of course Jesus has a body of flesh and bone because He chose, out of love, to become one of us. Where in the world do you ever find this is the case with God the Father? He is called the “invisible God” which means, by definition, that He does not possess a physical body.

The same as with us, we don’t know how He does things, other than by His power. We don’t believe a physical body has to place limitations on God, that is something others place upon Him.
These are concepts that go beyond our understanding, but we believe it to be true…just as you do with your beliefs.

That’s fine, as long as we acknowledge that our beliefs are completely different concerning the subject. And I would love to know, scripturally, where there is any evidence that the Father has a body of flesh and bone.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi, SteveVH,
'Hoping you and your family are all well.

The verse as shown above is what I consider a mistranslation of the word that was translated to the word “because”. It throws a whole different meaning into the passage than the Hebrew transliteration. However, even with that translation, one can get an understanding if they allow themselves to believe that God really does do all things for the benefit and blessing of humankind, that “cursed is the ground because of you” could just as well say “cursed is the ground for your sake” or in other words, “for your growth.”

So, no, that does not sound like a curse to me. It sounds like God knew exactly what humankind needed for our growth, and used that situation to provide the blessing to Adam and Eve of the challenge of overcoming the adversity of a more difficult situation than an easily harvested garden Paradise.

Yes, I do. I think women increase in their love for their child because of the difficulty of their having carried the baby and had childbirth in the midst of pain. I don’t regret having had a few “kidney stones” in my life, either, (although I drink more water now), since I could gain greater compassion through that kind of pain that I had never experienced previously, and can now empathize better with the pains others experience.

If I remember correctly, we had a long discussion some time ago about Adam and Eve and wisdom and so forth. We have such completely different views about their situation that it is like night and day, and the word “pride” does enter into that difference (not in the Biblical account) but also the word “wise” (which is in the Biblical account). No need to go through that discussion again.

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Thanks Parker. You are right. I don’t think either of us has the energy to walk that road again. Merry Christmas to you and your family as well.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t ascribe this to His physical birth. I too refer to His eternal existance. Nothing you have stated above contradicts my belief on this.
We know the firstborn holds a special place, in leadership, authority, inheritance etc. It is the position of the firstborn that brought about the meaning of preeminance and supremacy, not the other way around.

I’m not sure that I disagree with you, but firstborn as defined in English does not carry the same meaning as the Greek.

So are you saying your church is receiving revelation, and is lead by revelation? Would that be public or private revelation? I have been told that all public revelation has stopped. What is it you mean by communicating through His church, saints and sacraments? What is this communication? Who receives this communication for the church?

Yes, we receive private revelation all the time, but it will never change Church doctrine. It is meant to help our walk toward the One who is the fulfillment of all revelation, Jesus Christ. As I said, all private revelation points us back to the narrow road which leads us to Christ. What I mean by communicating through His Church, Saints and Sacraments is just that. We receive deeper meaning of the Gospels through the priests and theologians of our Church. We receive private revelation from the Church’s Saints. We enter into the life of God through His sacraments and receive knowledge of Him through this relationship.

I would say the Marian apparitions are probably the most well known revelations which have contained secrets to be revealed at a later time. We have countless saints who have received revelation, Padre Pio being one of those more recent to be blessed with this gift. Regardless, all them, without fail, only turn us back toward Christ.

Peace to you.

 

[flyonthewall]

Take Colossians 1:15. The phrase used is "protokos pases ktiseos, not “born” in the literal sense (or from God having “Biblical knowledge” of Mary), the translation is “first taken”. The meaning here is not an order of birth, but the rights and authority and inheritance of Christ.

I am not a linguist so I will leave that as you state.

We are CREATIONS. Therein lies the inherit difference between LDS beliefs and “Orthodox”. In Mormonism, Christ is the the same type of being we are, different only in degree (he is the eldest, and “most progressed” of God’s literal “children”). In Catholic and “Orthodox” belief, there is a fundamental difference between God and his creations. God is not a created being. We are.

It has been said before by others…we believe we are the same species as God because we are His children.
If you want to be His creature, so be it. I am His child.

Its outlined pretty well in this Maxwell Institute comparison of Theosis and Exaltation:

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=7&chapterID=63

By the LDS line of thinking, it is Christ’s “progession” that allows him to save, not his nature as the living God, and its something we will do after exaltation.

It is Christ’s preeminance, superiority, and divinity that allows Him to save. He is the Son of God. He commands to become like Him, and as is stated in Revelation 3, to him that overcometh he will bid come sit with Him on His throne, just as He sits with His Father on His Father’s throne. I believe the scriptures and the fullness of their meaning, not the muted meanings that others pull out of them.

 

[rainman10]

Oh I don’t know, maybe little things such as “He was once as we are now”. Do you not see a conflict here? God was never as we are now and if you believe that God is eternal (as the rest of the world defines “eternal”) there is no way that you could believe that statement, yet you continue to make it. Do you see why this might be confusing?

SteveVH. It seems that when Mormons speak of God being eternal, their version of eternal means eternal as far and this earth, or this world, or this planet is concerned. They kind of fail to mention that. This can be the only explanation because, from what I understand, there were planets or worlds before this one that we live in now, that have had their own gods. And I assume they would state that each of those gods are eternal, but as applied to each of their own worlds. Quite confusing, to say the least. I think that somehow in the future, they will somehow have a “revelation” and come around to our way of thinking, since their doctrine is very open to change…when necessary.

 

[scipio337]

I am not a linguist so I will leave that as you state.

Good. The context is just as important as the translation here. The “firstborn” are a theme throughout the OT and NT. As a title of inheritance and authority, not birth number.

flyonthewall:

It has been said before by others…we believe we are the same species as God because we are His children.
If you want to be His creature, so be it. I am His child.

Sure. You believe in “children” in a literal sense. It’s not so in Judaism or orthodox Chrisitianity.

We are forever His creations, in both. If you want to use the term “creature”, that’s your perogative, but its what the teaching has historically been.

flyonthewall:

It is Christ’s preeminance, superiority, and divinity that allows Him to save. He is the Son of God. He commands to become like Him, and as is stated in Revelation 3, to him that overcometh he will bid come sit with Him on His throne, just as He sits with His Father on His Father’s throne. I believe the scriptures and the fullness of their meaning, not the muted meanings that others pull out of them.

But as you point out before, “We are His children”. In other words, there is no difference between you or Christ, except he is your elder. In time, (and adherence to LDS faith) you will be another “Christ”. And I’m the one pulling a muted meaning?

You would do well to re-read Revelation 3, and see its mirror in Isaiah 25:6, Luke 14:15 and 22:30.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Kathleen,(Note: I would say the answer for me to each of those questions 1 through 4 is a definite “no”, and knowledge is something good to be sought after in this life, so long as it is used for the benefit of mankind.)

If I may.:tiphat:

Knowledged must be discerned if true or not, and as you know much testimony lies in Satans answer " you will be like god." his half truth that was part of the lure in the great deception. The only thing they learned was evil and that was the only simile. They already had the image and likeness of God and He testified they were very good.

Peace

 

[flyonthewall]

Jesus saw the Father do everything He has ever done. Jesus does nothing of Himself because He cannot act independently of the Father. This is because they are truly One. Where the Father is, there is the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where the Son is, there are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is, there are the Father and the Son. The verses you quoted show the unity of the Trinity. I would think this would be more difficult to understand if you believed they were separate beings, but they aren’t. Jesus did not become human until the incarnation. At the same time He never lost His divinity. Jesus didn’t have to go to “God school” to learn how to be divine. This is a complete misinterpretation.

This still doesn’t answer what it was that Jesus “saw” His father do. Their unity is not in question, but what was it Jesus saw His father do?

First of all, the uncaused cause is only logical. The nature of the world points to One who did not have a beginning. It does not contradict God’s eternal nature but rather requires it. You need to think about it a little further.

Logical to whom? What about the nature of this world points to One who did not have a beginning? Science certainly does not require One who has no beginning, and science only goes by the physical evidence this world presents. You stated yourself that there is a cause for everything. The “uncaused” cause sounds like an attempt to define the undefinable. This is the problem with the concept of eternal, we put definitions on it that may or may not be adequate.

Of course God is a God of order. It is one of the proofs that God exists. The fact that God created everything and gave it order does not mean that He is subject to the laws He created. He is above the physical world and lives outside of space and time. No, He is not subject to the laws of of physics. Do you remember when He made the sun stand still? Do you remember the three days of darkness when he blotted out the sun to show Pharaoh his power of the Egyptian gods?

How can there be order if rules are not followed? That is choas. He is a master of the laws of physics, and uses the laws of physics to perform all the miracles. Just because we do not understand how He did them does not mean He broke any laws of physics. He just has a deeper understanding of them. People living in biblical times would find our lives today as miraculous and defying natural laws.

These are the types of terms that make one begin to twist and turn. You believe that God exists with an "eternal perspective"? What does that mean? Do you believe He is eternal or not? Did He have a beginning or not?

I did not mean to limit God’s existance to simply a perspective…that is not what I meant. I meant that as an eternal being, He sees things differently than we do.
Yes, He is eternal.

Of course Jesus has a body of flesh and bone because He chose, out of love, to become one of us. Where in the world do you ever find this is the case with God the Father? He is called the “invisible God” which means, by definition, that He does not possess a physical body.

Modern day revelation backed up by scripture. We are in the image of God. Jesus stated that if we see Him we see the Father.
He is called the “invisible God” only because He has not shown Himself to any but a very few. Stephen saw Him, that is recorded in the Bible. How can He see something or someone that is invisible? Jesus Christ now has a body of flesh and bone, yet He is not seen either…He too can be described as invisible.
Jesus was able to appear and disappear with His physical body.

That’s fine, as long as we acknowledge that our beliefs are completely different concerning the subject. And I would love to know, scripturally, where there is any evidence that the Father has a body of flesh and bone.

Our beliefs differ on some things but overlap on others.

 

[onenow1]

Very philosophical.

Here’s something very biblical.

Psalm 43: 9, Let all the nations gather together, and let the peoples assemble. Who among them can declare this, and show us the former things? Let them bring their witnesses to justify them, and let them hear and say, It is true.
10 “You are my witnesses,” says the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

Peace

 

[Javl]

I am not a linguist so I will leave that as you state.

It has been said before by others…we believe we are the same species as God because we are His children.
If you want to be His creature, so be it. I am His child.

Jesus says that God is spirit and that we should worship Him in spirit.

1. If God is spirit then how can He be of flesh and blood?
2. If God is spirit and we are supposed to be like Him, how then are we of flesh and blood?

It is Christ’s preeminance, superiority, and divinity that allows Him to save. He is the Son of God. He commands to become like Him, and as is stated in Revelation 3, to him that overcometh he will bid come sit with Him on His throne, just as He sits with His Father on His Father’s throne. I believe the scriptures and the fullness of their meaning, not the muted meanings that others pull out of them.

It should be noted that Christ was God before the beginning. When praying to His Father, Jesus asks Him to return the Glory that Jesus had before the beginning.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Nope! Poor biblical exegesis and a poor understanding of linguistics. Jesus and the Jews in Palestine did not speak English. You are interpretating the term: firstborn in the modern English sense,which is not applicable to the ancient Jews or Jesus.

Do tell, what is the interpretation of the term “firstborn”? What was the word used that was translated as such. What would have been a better English term to use than “firstborn”?

Firstborn (Greekrototokos) (Hebrews.1:6,Rom 8:29;Col.1:15). The first part of this word (proto) can indicate “first in time” (temporal priority) or “first in place” (preeminence). In this context,preeminence is in the forefront. Thus the Son of Man is the “chiefborn” among all of God’s creatures. See Ex.4:22;Det.21:16,17;Ps.89:23, where in the Greek OT prototokos is used to express the idea of preeminence. Understood as a second,separate description of Christ’s human nature,this title indicates that the Son in His humanity is now the foremost creature of all creation. However,the designation in no way indictates that Christ Himself was created by God,for ** all things were created in,through, and for Christ.** As a participant in the creation of all things,Christ cannot be a created being. Instead He is the Son of God,the Second Person of the Godhead,who has existed from eternity.

Quote:
If Jesus is only a creature,then explain how he could redeem and save? I thought scripture makes it clear only God alone can save? Likewise,in the NT numerous it is stated Jesus was WORSHIPED? It is forbidden for creatures to WORSHIP other creatures.Your interpretation is incorrect.

Are we creatures? or are we children? If Jesus became one of us, then indeed He became a creature.

Of course we are creatures,we are finite,only God is eternal. Wrong again. You are under the idea that since the Son became flesh (incarnate) he is merely a creature. Nope! Jesus was born with two natures: 100% human and 100% DIVINE.

I don’t buy into the bit about being a creature. I am a child of God, as all mankind is. We are not creatures, but children. Now I ask you, can a Son of God redeem? Furthermore, not just any Son of God, but the Only Begotten Son of God, can He save? I say: “yes He can”. What do you say?

God is the CREATOR;hence we are ALL His creations (aka creatures).Did God creature everything? It is not meant to be offensive. It is not “a” Son of God,but '“The” Son of God. Yes the the Son of God did redeem us (crucifixion on the cross) but not all save will be saved. Precisely,if Jesus is the Son of God (The Redeemer) and the Only Begotten,then he cannot be merely a creature.And why? Because creatures cannot redeem or save,only God (Jesus). Likewise,if humans beget humans,then if God begets,evidently He must beget…GOD who Incarnated as Jesus.

 

[SteveVH]

This still doesn’t answer what it was that Jesus “saw” His father do. Their unity is not in question, but what was it Jesus saw His father do?

Let me re-word this. Jesus and the Father are One. The Father does nothing without the Son and vice verse. He did not “teach” Jesus anything. They are the same being, thus my answer that Jesus saw everything the Father did, but more than that He participated in everything that His Father did. The Father is the Creator, yet everything was created by Jesus through the action of the Holy Spirit. You cannot separate them as if they were different beings.

Logical to whom? What about the nature of this world points to One who did not have a beginning?

Logical to anyone who will spend a brief amount of time considering the proposition. I don’t know what you are asking in the second question. My contention is that it does point to One who did not have a beginning.

Science certainly does not require One who has no beginning, and science only goes by the physical evidence this world presents. You stated yourself that there is a cause for everything. The “uncaused” cause sounds like an attempt to define the undefinable. This is the problem with the concept of eternal, we put definitions on it that may or may not be adequate.

Well I certainly don’t look to science to explain the eternal nature of God. I will say, though, that any scientist who had some degree of intellectual honesty and who believed in intelligent design of the universe, would have to come to the conclusion that there must be an uncaused cause. Something does not come from nothing in the natural world. That is a principal that is scientifically demonstrable.

How can there be order if rules are not followed? That is choas. He is a master of the laws of physics, and uses the laws of physics to perform all the miracles. Just because we do not understand how He did them does not mean He broke any laws of physics. He just has a deeper understanding of them. People living in biblical times would find our lives today as miraculous and defying natural laws.

Who said that rules were not followed? We have no choice but to submit to the laws of physics. When we fall out of a tree we hit the ground. What I have said is that God is not subject to the laws of physics. He didn’t just master them. He created them.

I did not mean to limit God’s existance to simply a perspective…that is not what I meant. I meant that as an eternal being, He sees things differently than we do.
Yes, He is eternal.

I still don’t think we’re communicating. Did He have a beginning?

Modern day revelation backed up by scripture. We are in the image of God. Jesus stated that if we see Him we see the Father.
He is called the “invisible God” only because He has not shown Himself to any but a very few. Stephen saw Him, that is recorded in the Bible. How can He see something or someone that is invisible? Jesus Christ now has a body of flesh and bone, yet He is not seen either…He too can be described as invisible.
Jesus was able to appear and disappear with His physical body.

I find it a little amazing at what you chose to interpret literally. Being made in His “image and likeness” has to do with our spiritual, rather than our physical nature. It has to do with a man and a woman becoming one flesh, resulting in a third, real person, in keeping with the Trinity. It has to do with our ability to choose goodness over evil; our free will. There is no indication anywhere that the Father has physical body other than your interpretation of this passage. Remember, Jesus had to humble himself in order to take on human flesh. God appeared as a flame, a pillar of cloud, a burning bush until the incarnation of Jesus who is the “image of the invisible God”. If He had a physical body why did He not show Himself? We are not his literal children. We become His children through adaption. Jesus, however, has been the Son from eternity (without beginning). His Sonship is different than ours.

 

[flyonthewall]

Jesus says that God is spirit and that we should worship Him in spirit.

1. If God is spirit then how can He be of flesh and blood?
2. If God is spirit and we are supposed to be like Him, how then are we of flesh and blood?

1. God is spirit, not A spirit. We have a spirit as well as a body.
2. If God is spirit and we are supposed to worship Him in spirit, do we leave our bodies behind to do so?

It should be noted that Christ was God before the beginning. When praying to His Father, Jesus asks Him to return the Glory that Jesus had before the beginning.

No argument there.

 

[flyonthewall]

Firstborn (Greekrototokos) (Hebrews.1:6,Rom 8:29;Col.1:15). The first part of this word (proto) can indicate “first in time” (temporal priority) or “first in place” (preeminence). In this context,preeminence is in the forefront. Thus the Son of Man is the “chiefborn” among all of God’s creatures. See Ex.4:22;Det.21:16,17;Ps.89:23, where in the Greek OT prototokos is used to express the idea of preeminence. Understood as a second,separate description of Christ’s human nature,this title indicates that the Son in His humanity is now the foremost creature of all creation. However,the designation in no way indictates that Christ Himself was created by God,for ** all things were created in,through, and for Christ.** As a participant in the creation of all things,Christ cannot be a created being. Instead He is the Son of God,the Second Person of the Godhead,who has existed from eternity.

This is a good description. I like it. The only thing that I would not necessarily agree with is the part about it being understood as a second separate description of Christ’s human nature.
I believe Jesus was firstborn of all God’s children, and as firstborn was “first in place” or preeminent. He did create heaven and earth under the direction of the Father.

Of course we are creatures,we are finite,only God is eternal. Wrong again. You are under the idea that since the Son became flesh (incarnate) he is merely a creature. Nope! Jesus was born with two natures: 100% human and 100% DIVINE.

I disagree, we are not finite. We are eternal also. We existed before we were born and will exist forever after we die.
I am under no such idea that Jesus is a creature. He is the Only Begotten Son of God, the second member of the Godhead.
I understand when you say Jesus was born 2 natures, He was mortal, and imortal at the same time. No man could take His life from Him, and only He could lay down His life.
“Human nature” does not displace divine nature, it is not a dichotomy. “Human nature”, when perfected, is divine.

God is the CREATOR;hence we are ALL His creations (aka creatures).Did God creature everything? It is not meant to be offensive. It is not “a” Son of God,but '“The” Son of God. Yes the the Son of God did redeem us (crucifixion on the cross) but not all save will be saved. Precisely,if Jesus is the Son of God (The Redeemer) and the Only Begotten,then he cannot be merely a creature.And why? Because creatures cannot redeem or save,only God (Jesus). Likewise,if humans beget humans,then if God begets,evidently He must beget…GOD who Incarnated as Jesus.

I agree with most everything here as I have never stated Jesus was a creature.
As children of God, what do you think our potential is, given all that has been promised in the scriptures?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Firstborn (Greekrototokos) (Hebrews.1:6,Rom 8:29;Col.1:15). The first part of this word (proto) can indicate “first in time” (temporal priority) or “first in place” (preeminence). In this context,preeminence is in the forefront. Thus the Son of Man is the “chiefborn” among all of God’s creatures. See Ex.4:22;Det.21:16,17;Ps.89:23, where in the Greek OT prototokos is used to express the idea of preeminence. Understood as a second,separate description of Christ’s human nature,this title indicates that the Son in His humanity is now the foremost creature of all creation. However,the designation in no way indictates that Christ Himself was created by God,for all things were created in,through, and for Christ. As a participant in the creation of all things,Christ cannot be a created being. Instead He is the Son of God,the Second Person of the Godhead,who has existed from eternity.

This is a good description. I like it. The only thing that I would not necessarily agree with is the part about it being understood as a second separate description of Christ’s human nature. I believe Jesus was firstborn of all God’s children, and as firstborn was “first in place” or preeminent. He did create heaven and earth under the direction of the Father.

You have scriptual references were Jesus created heaven and earth under the direction of the Father? God is ONE,but three distinct persons…ALL divine. Are you stating Jesus is a lesser god being told what to do? Jesus IS the Eternal ONE who was before all creation. Remember Colossians: 1:16? All things were “created by Him.”

Quote:
Of course we are creatures,we are finite,only God is eternal. Wrong again. You are under the idea that since the Son became flesh (incarnate) he is merely a creature. Nope! Jesus was born with two natures: 100% human and 100% DIVINE.

I disagree, we are not finite. We are eternal also. We existed before we were born and will exist forever after we die.

I beg your pardon? We are not finite? Are you Omniscient? Om(name removed by moderator)otent? Om(name removed by moderator)resent? Is Satan eternal? The angels?

Then what was God doing here:

Gen 1:26: Then God said, “Let Us **make man **in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[a] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (NKJV)

Likewise:

Gen 3:22:

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man **has become **like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—

How are you eternal? Is Satan eternal too? We live bcause God alone wills it,not because you will it.Sorry to rain on your parade brother,but you are not Eternal. ONLY GOD is Eternal. You live within the confines of space, matter and time and God is greater: Eternal. He is outside of time…ETERNAL.

I am under no such idea that Jesus is a creature. He is the Only Begotten Son of God, the second member of the Godhead.

Not member…Person.

I understand when you say Jesus was born 2 natures, He was mortal, and imortal at the same time. No man could take His life from Him, and only He could lay down His life.
“Human nature” does not displace divine nature, it is not a dichotomy. “Human nature”, when perfected, is divine.

Jesus is both God and man. Of course he can never die, the resurrection says it all.

Quote:
God is the CREATOR;hence we are ALL His creations (aka creatures).Did God creature everything? It is not meant to be offensive. It is not “a” Son of God,but '“The” Son of God. Yes the the Son of God did redeem us (crucifixion on the cross) but not all save will be saved. Precisely,if Jesus is the Son of God (The Redeemer) and the Only Begotten,then he cannot be merely a creature.And why? Because creatures cannot redeem or save,only God (Jesus). Likewise,if humans beget humans,then if God begets,evidently He must beget…GOD who Incarnated as Jesus.

I agree with most everything here as I have never stated Jesus was a creature.
As children of God, what do you think our potential is, given all that has been promised in the scriptures?

What do you mean by potential?