LDS: Jesus always God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pinay said:
Heavenly Father and Jesus, of course, are eternal.
Click to expand...
Joseph Smith is quoted saying each of the following in “The Teachings of Joseph Smith”:

“I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea”

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret”

“It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God … that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.”

“God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way…Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also?..”

…How do Joseph Smith’s teachings about God the Father in these quotes square up with what it says about God in the Bible?
 
ParkerD said:
SteveVH,

What you refer to as “obscure scriptural references” are as plain as day, just as Jesus is the light of the world. The Bible is obscure to those who make it obscure.

On the Catholic side of the question about Jesus and whether He was “always God”, one moves into reading Thomas Aquinas and then one moves toward acknowledging that his thinking was greatly influenced by Aristotelian philosophy–which becomes the whole basis of saying there can only be “one first cause” and therefore One God even though describing Him as Three Persons because the Bible differentiates between there being God the Father, His Only Begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Latter-day Saints simply understand that Aristotle was not inspired about there being “one first cause”.

The Bible can be read and understood, but it also allows for free will choice by each reader as to what they will glean from the teachings and the prophecies and promises.

Latter-day Saints glean meanings that are not influenced by Aristotelian philosophy–they are seen as being able to be understood just as the words describe the promises. John described those promises based on the vision he was given when he was God’s chosen leader on the earth. They aren’t “obscure”–but when viewed through the lens of Aristotelian philosophy, they do become “obscured” and are no longer clear.
Click to expand...
Parker, please show me where Scripture speaks of mankind as not being dependent upon God for its existence, but contains eternity within itself with the innate ability to become a god through obeying certain laws. You have no answer as to the origin of all things but settle for a not very well thought out philosophy that simply states that we have always existed, as has all matter. You claim to believe in an omnipotent God while at the same time contradicting his omnipotence by making him dependent on things already in existence in order to “organize” creation.

The fact that Aristotle arrived at a profound truth concerning God does not diminish the truth that God is the origin of all things, that nothing exists outside of God, that there must, even through human reason, be a first cause of all things. Please name me one thing in existence that does not have a cause? Your polytheistic idea of an eternal regression of gods and of self existent, eternal beings and matter cannot stand in the light of revealed truth in the Scritpures or even in the light of human reason.

You treat the word philosophy as a four letter word. The fact that one who is seeking truth (a philosopher) arrives at a truth that is consistent with revealed truth from God should not shock anyone. Mormonism attempts to discredit Christian doctrine concerning the nature of God because a philospher happens to agree with the fact that there must be an uncaused Cause in order for anything to exist, yet offers no credible argument in its place.
 
SteveVH said:
Parker, please show me where Scripture speaks of mankind as not being dependent upon God for its existence, but contains eternity within itself with the innate ability to become a god through obeying certain laws…
Click to expand...
SteveVH,

It doesn’t, and would not do so, because that is not a true statement, nor is anything remotely similar to that statement found in Latter-day Saint doctrine.
 
I would argue that God is not really God if the Mormon doctrine is true. God becomes more like Nietzsche’s Superman in that he is just a super-powered human and then our humanity becomes a passing stage which we are to overcome to reach this state of God/superman. If mormonism is right God is not eternal, He did not really create the laws of physics or time, or existence and is just the superman who has the most power out of us. He goes from the one God who created all, to something like Zeus who is one created being among many who happens to be our patron god. I am much more amazed at the God who created out of nothing, than the mormon one who was a created being who just replicated his home planet.
 
Heuchler said:
I would argue that God is not really God if the Mormon doctrine is true. God becomes more like Nietzsche’s Superman in that he is just a super-powered human and then our humanity becomes a passing stage which we are to overcome to reach this state of God/superman. If mormonism is right God is not eternal, He did not really create the laws of physics or time, or existence and is just the superman who has the most power out of us. He goes from the one God who created all, to something like Zeus who is one created being among many who happens to be our patron god. I am much more amazed at the God who created out of nothing, than the mormon one who was a created being who just replicated his home planet.
Click to expand...
Heuchler,

What you don’t understand, and probably can’t comprehend because of the Aristotelian philosophy lens, is that God can be God and still have lived on an earth, just like Jesus lived on this earth. He could even live “outside of time and space” in terms of our time and space, and we would not know the difference. Our universe can operate just like it does, and be the creation of God and yet there be other universes which we don’t know about.
 
ParkerD said:
Heuchler,

What you don’t understand, and probably can’t comprehend because of the Aristotelian philosophy lens, is that God can be God and still have lived on an earth, just like Jesus lived on this earth. He could even live “outside of time and space” in terms of our time and space, and we would not know the difference. Our universe can operate just like it does, and be the creation of God and yet there be other universes which we don’t know about.
Click to expand...
And yet our God would still not be eternal, nor would He have created everything. If Mormonism is right, in the beginning there was not God, but the God that was God’s God and the society and Universe that was created by that other God. And in the beginning there was not the word, for God had not had his spiritual child with one of his multiple wives yet. The christian God is not compatible with the mormon God. He is like Nietzsche’s Ubermensch in that he is just a heightened form of humanity we should strive for. For concept of God seems to be a super-powered immortal, not the beginning and the end, the one God.

And your comment that God can still be God and have lived on earth just like Jesus is a very faulty analogy. Jesus was God from the beginning to most other Christian denominations unlike the Mormon form of God, which had to live on a planet simply as a mortal who eventually got to be a God with his many wives. To most christians, God the Father and Christ are the Alpha and Omega and there was nothing before either of them as they were God forever.

And I’m really surprised you don’t like Aquinas because without the first Supergod, mormonism would become an infinite regress of gods who had other gods to create them which is impossible logically
 
Aristotle was addressing cause and effect…through the use of metaphysics…St. Thomas could prove through the use of metaphysics that God caused life…God alone is the constant…

And this is the philosophical side why Christianity has such issues with Mormonism…is that the beliefs are changing and prior to this are not based on God as Creator…
 
KathleenGee said:
Aristotle was addressing cause and effect…through the use of metaphysics…St. Thomas could prove through the use of metaphysics that God caused life…God alone is the constant…

And this is the philosophical side why Christianity has such issues with Mormonism…is that the beliefs are changing and prior to this are not based on God as Creator…
Click to expand...
Kathleen,

Aristotle was not a Jew, and had no knowledge of the Holy Spirit. He wrote as a philosopher. That means he philosophized as best he could, but it means he had no need to reflect on whether he was being inspired to write what he wrote or teach what he taught, or whether it was his own thinking.

True Christianity, originating from the Bible and from revelation based on what Jesus Christ taught, should not present Aristotelian logic and philosophy as its basis for beliefs about God–that just plain doesn’t make sense if one reads the Bible and finds that God communicated through prophets–not philosophers.
 
Aristotle was held in great esteem by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Church.

We studied Aristotle in secular high school and college…
 
Reason can also prove belief in God…for those who are open…as well as the erudite tradition…it is a matter of the foundation…cause can be God…
 
KathleenGee said:
Mercy…when did I call Aristotle a Jew???
Click to expand...
Kathleen,
By implying that the belief in the “Creator God” had origins in Aristotelian logic and philosophy, and by relating that to the word “Christianity”. That kind of thinking would have to make him either a Jew who knew he was a Jew or who didn’t know he was a Jew, or a Christian who didn’t know he was a Christian.
 
KathleenGee said:
Mercy…when did I call Aristotle a Jew???
Click to expand...
I think ParkerD was saying that because Aristotle was not Jewish he didn’t have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Which is a strange enough thing to point out, but it is coming from a common Mormon teaching that their idea of a great apostasy was brought about by the “philosophies of men” being taught.

I find this ironic considering his lengthy time spent supporting the philosophy of modern medicine on regards to the sanctity of life. In that instance, he will say God can influence the world through science, but now he’s saying that God influencing our understanding through metaphysics is apostasy.
 
So, Parker, we can’t take what is good and true from someone and leave what isn’t be? Even a clock is right twice a day, who is to say that this man wasn’t wise enough to stumble upon the truth. Who is to say that only Jews or Christians can be guided to the truth, and if someone does stumble upon but isn’t Christian or Jew, does that simply make that wrong. Instead of denying these philosophies, refute them.

If I just say I don’t agree with Mormonism because Joseph Smith wasn’t a Catholic before he made his revelations you wouldn’t be convinced by me and you would want me to at least try and show where Smith was wrong instead of making an assumption that only certain types of people can find the truth. Should I say Luther was wrong to rebel and say what was right or wrong that the Church was doing since he wasn’t a Pope? If you are going to claim that an idea should not be used, refute the idea, not the man behind that idea.
 
ParkerD said:
Heuchler,

What you don’t understand, and probably can’t comprehend because of the Aristotelian philosophy lens, is that God can be God and still have lived on an earth, just like Jesus lived on this earth. He could even live “outside of time and space” in terms of our time and space,
Click to expand...
Parker,

What you don’t understand, and probably can’t comprehend because of the lens of LDS theology’s implicit rejection of reason, is that living outside of time and space “in terms of our time and space,” is actually not living outside of time and space at all.

Actually, I have no doubt that you can comprehend this pretty easily. It’s just that, as Heuchler so aptly put it, you’re much more comfortable “refuting” the man behind the idea than the idea itself.

Also, the idea that God “only” works through prophets and not philosophers doesn’t even pass the laugh test. I can pull the example of Nebuchadnezzar off the top of my head. God sends Nebuchadnezzar, who is most decidedly not a Jew, a dream, which Daniel interprets for him:

“[28] But there is a God in heaven that revealeth mysteries, who hath shewn to thee, O king Nabuchodonosor, what is to come to pass in the latter times.”

drbo.org/chapter/32002.htm

“God… who hath shewn to thee.” That is explicit Biblical evidence of God communicating with a neither a prophet, nor a Jew, nor philosopher. More importantly, it is explicit evidence that God can communicate with someone without that person even knowing they are communicating with God. Later on, Daniel steps in and interprets this dream for Nebuchadnezzar - correctly, we are to presume. But in any case, there is no question that, according to the Bible at least, God sent that dream to Nebuchadnezzar.

Similarly, there is nothing in the Bible, nor in traditional, orthodox Christian theology that would categorically rule out the possibility that the Holy Spirit was working through Aristotle, even if Aristotle had no idea that it was with God Himself whom he was communicating. Later on, St. Thomas Aquinas steps in and, like Daniel in Babylon, places Aristotle’s thoughts in the context which God intended.

I realize, as everyone else here does, that your true intention in waving the Aristotle Boogey Man mask is to cut off debate regarding the gaping holes and contradictions in LDS theology. I keep hoping, though, that you’ll eventually figure out that you’re not really fooling anyone.
 
Heuchler said:
And yet our God would still not be eternal, nor would He have created everything. If Mormonism is right, in the beginning there was not God, but the God that was God’s God and the society and Universe that was created by that other God. And in the beginning there was not the word, for God had not had his spiritual child with one of his multiple wives yet. The christian God is not compatible with the mormon God. He is like Nietzsche’s Ubermensch in that he is just a heightened form of humanity we should strive for. For concept of God seems to be a super-powered immortal, not the beginning and the end, the one God.

And your comment that God can still be God and have lived on earth just like Jesus is a very faulty analogy. Jesus was God from the beginning to most other Christian denominations unlike the Mormon form of God, which had to live on a planet simply as a mortal who eventually got to be a God with his many wives. To most christians, God the Father and Christ are the Alpha and Omega and there was nothing before either of them as they were God forever.

And I’m really surprised you don’t like Aquinas because without the first Supergod, mormonism would become an infinite regress of gods who had other gods to create them which is impossible logically
Click to expand...
👍
 
Aristotle’s use of logic in cause and effect would not work on Joseph Smith’s interpretations…nor could St. Thomas Aquinas erudition of God as Unmoved Mover either reconcile with the sense of God Mormonism proposes…

As said here…Mormonism cannot stand up to erudition…and faith and reason Should go together.

St. Athanasius is now being quoted by Mormon sophists as a proof that Smith was right all along…yet St. Athanasius affirms Christ of the same substance and oneness with God…and that we must apply education and utilize it in approaching faith with a scholasti c disipline as well…especially since ours is of salvation history that claims actual people, customs, events.
 
Common idea with LDS & JW’s due to profound ignorance culminating in scripture twisting to their advantage and devised dogmas. Greek, Roman etc philosophers, mathematicians are suspect because they are not “Christian” but “PAGAN”, is THAT what you are saying Parker? God revealed His plan of salvation slowing through the Israelites, then Jewish people culminating in the Incarnation, Teachings, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Christ & it’s fulfillment in Christianity, Catholic and Orthodox, the 2 lungs of the Church.

Seems there is a lack of regard and understanding of the “NATURAL LAW” & problem for some to accept God allowed gifts of knowledge in mathematics, medicine, astronomy, etc. to people outside Christian boundaries. However uneducated in God’s plan of salvation, they used their God given brains 😃 Apparently Aristotle did not live to hear the Good News but he did the job he was meant to do - God put him in an essential time and place in history special and specific only for him.

Theology & Philosophy are sister sciences - you can’t have one without the other - yes Kathleen Faith & Reason dovetail nicely with each other. Aristotle hit many nails on the head. Truth is Truth - you LIMIT GOD when you say He couldn’t reveal it to a PAGAN FIRST, ex. reason or mathematics…

Crazy: math came from pagans, therefore math can’t be right, so chuck math? :banghead:
 
ParkerD said:
Heuchler,

What you don’t understand, and probably can’t comprehend because of the Aristotelian philosophy lens, is that God can be God and still have lived on an earth, just like Jesus lived on this earth. He could even live “outside of time and space” in terms of our time and space, and we would not know the difference. Our universe can operate just like it does, and be the creation of God and yet there be other universes which we don’t know about.
Click to expand...
This is a pointless deflection with a bit of condescension thrown in for good measure. An “Aristotelian philosophy lens” has no bearing on being able to comprehend anything you list, particularly the possible existence of other universes.
 
Well…

What are the traits that make us an image of God? We have free will and an intellect that can reason…

St. Paul said, and history shows, that many of the ancients believed in a god or gods by reason and observation of nature…certainly of the same makes that brought forth philosophers in later times.

More on Aristotle…and where the Church also saw his weaknesses at another place and time…

We have to look at the nature of God as communion…it is the best personal explanation I have of the Holy Trinity…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top