Son Of GOD
God Is only one, He is not the Father of any one but The creator of Every one. According some religion Book(Bible) son of God means The person who accept the onness of Allah and lead his life according to the teachings of God Almighty, so every person who believes in GOD is the Son of God, it does mean that he is Born to God but he is Created by GOD.
I agree.
I think that all of us are the "sons of God", technically. In less sexist terms, we should say "children of God". Because I'm LDS, I'll say that Jesus Christ is just the eldest and more intelligent of God's children...and also had the most sacred calling out of all of God's children. He is subservient to God (backed by many different instances).
So I kind of gloss over when Christians talk about Christ being the "Son of God": it is kind of moot since we are all that. However, I think they mean "only son of God begotten in the flesh". Which is different. That would mean that YHWH is the only one that was directly created by God.
However....even that is not true because it was the Holy Ghost that created Jesus in the womb. But maybe we could say "under the direct instruction of God, did God have YHWH created in Mary's womb". That still seems a bit arbitrary because we were all created, indirectly, by God.
So, I think the distinguishment is only one of vernacular but not actual when you get down to it.
This is why I agreed that he is a Son of God, just like the rest of us: God's chief creation, to be exact.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree.I think that all of us are the "sons of God", technically. In less sexist terms, we should say "children of God". Because I'm LDS, I'll say that Jesus Christ is just the eldest and more intelligent of God's children...and also had the most sacred calling out of all of God's children. He is subservient to God (backed by many different instances).
So I kind of gloss over when Christians talk about Christ being the "Son of God": it is kind of moot since we are all that. However, I think they mean "only son of God begotten in the flesh". Which is different. That would mean that YHWH is the only one that was directly created by God.
However....even that is not true because it was the Holy Ghost that created Jesus in the womb. But maybe we could say "under the direct instruction of God, did God have YHWH created in Mary's womb". That still seems a bit arbitrary because we were all created, indirectly, by God.
So, I think the distinguishment is only one of vernacular but not actual when you get down to it.
This is why I agreed that he is a Son of God, just like the rest of us: God's chief creation, to be exact.
Originally posted by King Kandy
What is the rationale for separating YHVH and God as two distinct entities? (Using the tetragrammaton in reference to Jesus but not the father?)
I have a hard time answering/understanding your question without going through great detail. Your question makes sense if asked: "What is the rationale for combining God, YHWH, and the Holy Ghost into one being?"*
However, for a lengthy dialogue on LDS and the Trinity Concept:
http://mormonapologeticstudies.org/2010/10/24/mormonism-and-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
It's lengthy, as the question requires, but does have some irrelevant information. It is also not an "LDS Church sponsored" website. In fact, the Church discourages "arguing"...which is what apologetics boil down to.
*Here's why that question makes more sense than the one you posed: the Nicene Creed was virtually "new" as official doctrine. From what I know, most early Christians believed in the Godhead as Mormons do: one in purpose, mission, power, will...but not one in substance.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have a hard time answering/understanding your question without going through great detail. Your question makes sense if asked: "What is the rationale for combining God, YHWH, and the Holy Ghost into one being?"*However, for a lengthy dialogue on LDS and the Trinity Concept:
http://mormonapologeticstudies.org/2010/10/24/mormonism-and-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
It's lengthy, as the question requires, but does have some irrelevant information. It is also not an "LDS Church sponsored" website. In fact, the Church discourages "arguing"...which is what apologetics boil down to.
*Here's why that question makes more sense than the one you posed: the Nicene Creed was virtually "new" as official doctrine. From what I know, most early Christians believed in the Godhead as Mormons do: one in purpose, mission, power, will...but not one in substance.
In the old testament, God most high is referred to by the hebrew YHVH, among a multitude of titles. You seem to associate this name with Jesus, but not the Father. Since this title was used among Jews, and among the old testament, I don't see why you have somehow transferred that name onto Jesus; and then, you tell me that i'm the one "combining God and YHVH". I am pretty confused. The old testament uses that name for God, so, I do not understand why you are bringing up Nicea...my question is not about the trinity but rather the (to me, seemingly) bizarre application of the name YHVH.
I do not doubt what you're saying about the trinity, lots of the earliest church fathers gave them distinct existences (not sure about most). The famed Origen,, for one, espoused this. The catholic church has an odd way of retroactively rejecting some of their most prominent founders.
Originally posted by King Kandy
You're still doing it now.
Still doing what? I typed a bunch of stuff. 🙁
Originally posted by King Kandy
In the old testament, God most high is referred to by the hebrew YHVH, among a multitude of titles. You seem to associate this name with Jesus, but not the Father. Since this title was used among Jews, and among the old testament, I don't see why you have somehow transferred that name onto Jesus; and then, you tell me that i'm the one "combining God and YHVH". I am pretty confused. The old testament uses that name for God, so, I do not understand why you are bringing up Nicea...my question is not about the trinity but rather the (to me, seemingly) bizarre application of the name YHVH.
You seem a bit combative. Why? I see no reason to be.
The answer to your question is very simple: the god of the old testament is Jesus Christ/YHWH/Jehovah/JHVH.
Even in LDS Theology, it is difficult to tell Who is speaking: God or Jesus? We sometimes have to get clarification (yes, I mean praying).
Here is a more official LDS write-up of why I/We believe that about the old testament God (it is from the "institute" course-work which is basically LDS "bible-school" courses):
http://institute.lds.org/manuals/old-testament-institute-student-manual-1/ot-in1-02-gen-a-A.asp
Edit - After re-reading my post and then your reply (that section I quoted from your post), it makes sense why you are confused. If you were approaching my post with the lack of information concerning Mormons and their belief on the old testemant God, it makes perfect sense that my reference to YHWH would be oddly out of place.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I do not doubt what you're saying about the trinity, lots of the earliest church fathers gave them distinct existences (not sure about most). The famed Origen,, for one, espoused this. The catholic church has an odd way of retroactively rejecting some of their most prominent founders.
In my studies, I have not found very many references to a trinity concept before the Nicene Creed. It is seemingly very rare. Almost all consider them separate...such as Origen. The Trinity concept seemed more political than doctrinal, TBH. I have talked about this before. I am abrasive to the more...politically motivated teachings/doctrines (that does include LDS stuff, too: Prop 8, for example). The Nicene Creeds are not exempt from my disfavor.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You seem a bit combative. Why? I see no reason to be.The answer to your question is very simple: the god of the old testament is Jesus Christ/YHWH/Jehovah/JHVH.
Even in LDS Theology, it is difficult to tell Who is speaking: God or Jesus? We sometimes have to get clarification (yes, I mean praying).
Here is a more official LDS write-up of why I/We believe that about the old testament God (it is from the "institute" course-work which is basically LDS "bible-school" courses):
http://institute.lds.org/manuals/old-testament-institute-student-manual-1/ot-in1-02-gen-a-A.asp
Edit - After re-reading my post and then your reply (that section I quoted from your post), it makes sense why you are confused. If you were approaching my post with the lack of information concerning Mormons and their belief on the old testemant God, it makes perfect sense that my reference to YHWH would be oddly out of place.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Hmm. That is an interesting theory, I had heard that some Christians considered the son active in the Old Testament.
Indeed. I was suprised to see that other Christians concluded/believed that the God of the OT is Jesus. But if you take a step back and look at their reasoning (Mormons, not intentionally, take a demeaning position by saying, "They arrived at the truth, even with their limited knowledge, independent of modern revelations"😉, it seems sound.
It says Elohim/God created the heavens and the earth in the OT. In the NT, it says that "the word" (Jesus Christ) created the heavens and the earth under God's direction. So the step to "Jesus created the universe" is not a very big one for Christians without the "benefit" of a modern-day prophet.
Mormons did not properly distinguish (in an official capacity) Elohim (ultimate God) from Jehovah (Jesus Christ) until around 1906.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Looking at it from an atheists perspective (the bible is the work of many hands), it seems a little far fetched.
I agree. There are 3 exceptions to the "Jesus is the God of the OT" rule. And that makes things more confusing. This is partly why Mormons hold that all works created by man will, as a necessity, not be perfect. This is also why we are disliked by other Christians: it means we fundementally believe the bible to be flawed (same with the Book of Mormon...we just believe it to be less flawed since it has not been abridged/translated as many times).
Originally posted by King Kandy
But of course, when you bring extra biblical revelation into it, it is a whole new deal.
I actually lol'd. This also pisses off other Christians.
Non-Mormon Christian (NMC): "On what grounds do you make this conclusion Mr. Mormon?"
Mormon: "God revealed it to a real prophet of modern days."
NMC: "Jesus Christ facepalm."
Mormon: "Watch your language...but you're right! lol"
Originally posted by King Kandy
I can see why it is, at least a fairly strong rationalization. Christians have adopted many different tactics trying to reconcile the attitudes of YHVH and Christ.
I agree. If I approach the topic, secularly, it seems more likely that most of the time "God" is speaking in the OT to the Jews, the "speaker" is Jesus Christ, not the ultimate God.
More on topic, the trinity:
I find it to be a dodge by Christians who support the Trinity concept (a dodge when confronted from the atheist side of argument). To me, it is a confusing concept. It is quite silly to think that Jesus is God when he prays to God and talks of aligning his will to the Father's. It makes no sense to then say that Jesus is also the father IF they have two separate wills: else Jesus say he align his will to the Father's?
One thing that I have been considering, as of late, is the concept of Jesus NOT actually being all that divine. He may have just been a prophet, just as the secular world indicates. It appears his diviness was added AFTER the fact...including his "Son of David" lineage.
However, that does not detract from the fact that he could have attained god-ship after his death and resurrecton. Meaning, I am having my cake and eating it too, at this point.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. I was suprised to see that other Christians concluded/believed that the God of the OT is Jesus. But if you take a step back and look at their reasoning (Mormons, not intentionally, take a demeaning position by saying, "They arrived at the truth, even with their limited knowledge, independent of modern revelations"😉, it seems sound.It says Elohim/God created the heavens and the earth in the OT. In the NT, it says that "the word" (Jesus Christ) created the heavens and the earth under God's direction. So the step to "Jesus created the universe" is not a very big one for Christians without the "benefit" of a modern-day prophet.
Mormons did not properly distinguish (in an official capacity) Elohim (ultimate God) from Jehovah (Jesus Christ) until around 1906.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. There are 3 exceptions to the "Jesus is the God of the OT" rule. And that makes things more confusing. This is partly why Mormons hold that all works created by man will, as a necessity, not be perfect. This is also why we are disliked by other Christians: it means we fundementally believe the bible to be flawed (same with the Book of Mormon...we just believe it to be less flawed since it has not been abridged/translated as many times).
Originally posted by dadudemon
I actually lol'd. This also pisses off other Christians.Non-Mormon Christian (NMC): "On what grounds do you make this conclusion Mr. Mormon?"
Mormon: "God revealed it to a real prophet of modern days."
NMC: "Jesus Christ facepalm."
Mormon: "Watch your language...but you're right! lol"
Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. If I approach the topic, secularly, it seems more likely that most of the time "God" is speaking in the OT to the Jews, the "speaker" is Jesus Christ, not the ultimate God.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I find it to be a dodge by Christians who support the Trinity concept (a dodge when confronted from the atheist side of argument). To me, it is a confusing concept. It is quite silly to think that Jesus is God when he prays to God and talks of aligning his will to the Father's. It makes no sense to then say that Jesus is also the father IF they have two separate wills: else Jesus say he align his will to the Father's?One thing that I have been considering, as of late, is the concept of Jesus NOT actually being all that divine. He may have just been a prophet, just as the secular world indicates. It appears his diviness was added AFTER the fact...including his "Son of David" lineage.
However, that does not detract from the fact that he could have attained god-ship after his death and resurrecton. Meaning, I am having my cake and eating it too, at this point.
Lots of early Christians believed Jesus was not born divine, but gained divinity at his baptism when the holy spirit entered him. In some apocrypha it is not the holy spirit but the Son, who enters the human Jesus at that moment and "possesses" him.
Originally posted by King Kandy
This is an interesting point. It reminds me of the documentary hypothesis, where it is posited that the "YHVH" vs "Elohim" passages came from originally separate sources, clumsily interspersed within each other in the modern version.
That's also something that I believe. Come on...TWO separate creation stories in the first few chapters? Why two? Obviously, something was abridged, combined, or got mixed up. The LDS claim to have an older more accurate source, from Moses, on the creation story via the books of Moses and Abraham. It does clear some problems up that the original Genesis account creates: the creation of the earth took a long time, there are thousands to millions of other planets with life (it leaves the possibility for a "multiverse" open, as well...because God tells Moses, in the book of Moses, that Moses would not be able to number all the worlds He has created like Earth), Adam and Eve were probably not the only humans around when they did there thing (because Cain marries someone that was not Adam's child), why Lucifer fell, and so forth. Granted, it could all be the musings of a charismatic human, but it helps me, at least, make sense of this God stuff a bit better.
Originally posted by King Kandy
It certainly is harder to argue against that. Someone who sticks to a text can be shown textual evidence of contradictions. I'm not sure what you do when someone has a vision, other than tell them they're crazy.
If you approach revelation from God as having always passed through a human, then why in the world would it be perfect? As a necessity of us not being omni-everything, the message would immediately be corrupted into something less. So why in the world would a Christian literalist stand by the Bible when even a layman can point out the problems that arise from the words? What do you do when someone claims to have had a vision? Pray about it. 🙂 I know, I know...lame cop-out. But, yes, "crazy" would be my first conclusion.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't really have a problem with visions; you can't prove they're true, but imo you can't do that about anything in religion.
Do you mean "you can't do that with everything in religion"? Because I agree: at what point do you stop relying on visions from a "visionary" and actually request something tangible to go on? For example, if a prophet claims that God came to him in a vision and instructed him to focus on building familial bonds because it will improve society, then you could clearly measure whether or not what the man said is right: do some studies on happy families vs. broken families and see which types are happier. Surely some things God instructs CAN be measured by science?
Originally posted by King Kandy
I would say they're equally false, but maybe the vision is actually a little better, because you have a little more freedom to work out doctrine yourself. Of any religion, I would say the hippie "religion" is the best; just rely exclusively on visions and don't tie yourself to any dogma.
I also hold the same about visions. When any person claims a vision, I immediately become skeptical. 9 out of 10 times, there is a clear motivation behind that person claiming a vision...especially if they are an evangelical preacher. Thankfully, my parents were much more academic than most and strongly encouraged I research and be skeptical of everything around me. I feel that in today's internet age, one should not have to rely on the teachings of their parents in order to be skeptical: we should be skeptical of everything, regardless of our upbringing.
Originally posted by King Kandy
It seems more likely to me that the "speaker" is Yaldabaoth. But I digress...
Yes, we talked about this before. I'm still not sold on it since I see the "JHWH is Jesus" concept as having too many parallels to be discarded.
Originally posted by King Kandy
What I dislike the most is the excuse "of course I can't explain it to you; it is a divine mystery beyond human comprehension". AKA "I don't understand it, but i'm gonna stick with it anyway!"
That's exactly what I meant: clearly a dodge. It should not be surprising that Evangelical apologists are rarely taken seriously due to their inability to have a legitimate discussion on some of their beliefs.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Lots of early Christians believed Jesus was not born divine, but gained divinity at his baptism when the holy spirit entered him. In some apocrypha it is not the holy spirit but the Son, who enters the human Jesus at that moment and "possesses" him.
That's a good point and one that is not far off from the LDS perspective: Christ's divine ministry is not seen to have begun until AFTER he was baptized. We also believe it could not begin until after the baptism occured (he needed to show his subordination to God's command in order to begin his Earthly ministry, despite Him not needing to be baptized). No wonder some anti-mormons call us "American gnostics". hmm
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's also something that I believe. Come on...TWO separate creation stories in the first few chapters? Why two? Obviously, something was abridged, combined, or got mixed up. The LDS claim to have an older more accurate source, from Moses, on the creation story via the books of Moses and Abraham. It does clear some problems up that the original Genesis account creates: the creation of the earth took a long time, there are thousands to millions of other planets with life (it leaves the possibility for a "multiverse" open, as well...because God tells Moses, in the book of Moses, that Moses would not be able to number all the worlds He has created like Earth), Adam and Eve were probably not the only humans around when they did there thing (because Cain marries someone that was not Adam's child), why Lucifer fell, and so forth. Granted, it could all be the musings of a charismatic human, but it helps me, at least, make sense of this God stuff a bit better.
Something absolutely fascinating I learned recently; at one point, the fall of Lucifer was considered a heretic belief by the Catholic church. Actually, inquisitors claimed this was one of the "heretical" beliefs of the Cathars, worthy of death; only to adopt that exact view later as official doctrine! What a cruel period.
Personally, I don't think the fall is very strongly based in pure biblical evidence. I suppose this may be cleared up in Mormon apocrypha? i have never actually read a Mormon text, maybe it should be on my list some time (currently working my way through the Nag Hammadi library).
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you approach revelation from God as having always passed through a human, then why in the world would it be perfect? As a necessity of us not being omni-everything, the message would immediately be corrupted into something less. So why in the world would a Christian literalist stand by the Bible when even a layman can point out the problems that arise from the words? What do you do when someone claims to have had a vision? Pray about it. 🙂 I know, I know...lame cop-out. But, yes, "crazy" would be my first conclusion.Do you mean "you can't do that with everything in religion"? Because I agree: at what point do you stop relying on visions from a "visionary" and actually request something tangible to go on? For example, if a prophet claims that God came to him in a vision and instructed him to focus on building familial bonds because it will improve society, then you could clearly measure whether or not what the man said is right: do some studies on happy families vs. broken families and see which types are happier. Surely some things God instructs CAN be measured by science?
I also hold the same about visions. When any person claims a vision, I immediately become skeptical. 9 out of 10 times, there is a clear motivation behind that person claiming a vision...especially if they are an evangelical preacher. Thankfully, my parents were much more academic than most and strongly encouraged I research and be skeptical of everything around me. I feel that in today's internet age, one should not have to rely on the teachings of their parents in order to be skeptical: we should be skeptical of everything, regardless of our upbringing.
Everything i've seen in my life, actually convinces me that atheist families are happier than Christian ones. This may just have to do with the region I live in, though.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, we talked about this before. I'm still not sold on it since I see the "JHWH is Jesus" concept as having too many parallels to be discarded.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's exactly what I meant: clearly a dodge. It should not be surprising that Evangelical apologists are rarely taken seriously due to their inability to have a legitimate discussion on some of their beliefs.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a good point and one that is not far off from the LDS perspective: Christ's divine ministry is not seen to have begun until AFTER he was baptized. We also believe it could not begin until after the baptism occured (he needed to show his subordination to God's command in order to begin his Earthly ministry, despite Him not needing to be baptized). No wonder some anti-mormons call us "American gnostics". hmm
I would say it is not quite the same though. In the gnostic case, Jesus DID need to be baptized; he was just an ordinary man (though a pious one). But it was the spirit of Christ that was really the important part. The human Jesus was just a vessel.
According to scripture; God said let us make man in our image. At that time man only had one nature, God's nature. God is a spirit, and therefore, when God made man in his image, he was a spirit as well. It was only when man fell out of sync with God's plan, by partaking of the fruit of knowledge did man take on a second nature, a dual nature. Man was once immortal according to scripture.
According to scripture, the only Son/s of God were the Angels. Reading Job shows us this much. It was only until after Christ ascended that Men/Women could be called Children of God.
Let me back up a little bit though. As there are the Children of God, there are also the Children of Satan, because of our duality, and will of choices. So no, not all men and women are Children of God, this is an erroneous train of thought.
Originally posted by Stoic
Let me back up a little bit though. As there are the Children of God, there are also the Children of Satan, because of our duality, and will of choices. So no, not all men and women are Children of God, this is an erroneous train of thought.
Satan is nowhere near as important in the Bible as he became in Christian Theology during the Middle Ages and beyond.
Same with Hell really.
What you're describing sounds more like Zoroastrianism than Christianity to me.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
There is nothing to suggest this in the Scriptures.Satan is nowhere near as important in the Bible as he became in Christian Theology during the Middle Ages and beyond.
Same with Hell really.
What you're describing sounds more like Zoroastrianism than Christianity to me.
Have you read Job? <--- (older than the middle ages correct?) If not perhaps you should delve a little deeper. Does the Old Testament of the bible somehow make you believe, that the Spirit of God changes his stance as opposed to his stance in the New Testament? The only difference that I saw is how he chose to deal with mankind.
What I pointed out above was what was written in Genesis. What are you contesting?
Originally posted by Stoic
Have you read Job? <--- (older than the middle ages correct?) If not perhaps you should delve a little deeper. Does the Old Testament of the bible somehow make you believe, that the Spirit of God changes his stance as opposed to his stance in the New Testament? The only difference that I saw is how he chose to deal with mankind.
And attempts to reconcile Old Testament God with New Testament God are always...lulzy. There's evidence to suggest that New Testament God was a version of the OT God that early Christians spruced up to suit the Platonic Ideal of "the One"
Children of Satan has no basis whatsoever in the Scripture. The closest I can think of within Christian theology is the concept of Double Predestination argued by some Calvinists: that some people are born destined to go to Hell.
What I pointed out above was what was written in Genesis. What are you contesting?
...in the Bible he's a character who shows up a few times. I bet you also think Satan was the serpent in Eden.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I have actually.And attempts to reconcile Old Testament God with New Testament God are always...lulzy. There's evidence to suggest that New Testament God was a version of the OT God that early Christians spruced up to suit the Platonic Ideal of "the One"
Children of Satan has no basis whatsoever in the Scripture. The closest I can think of within Christian theology is the concept of Double Predestination argued by some Calvinists: that some people are born destined to go to Hell.
That the Bible treats Satan as some kind of counterpoint to God...
...in the Bible he's a character who shows up a few times. I bet you also think Satan was the serpent in Eden.
As a matter of fact I do believe that Satan was the serpent in the Garden. In no way is Satan the counter point to God. There isn't some power struggle between the two, as many believe. God allows Satan to operate in men, but there will come a day that his power will be in a word... revoked.
John 8:44
For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies.
You are nearly on the verge of blasphemy if you did not know. Unless, you are not saying that the spirit of God had less part in the writings of New Testament than that he had in Old Testament teachings. According to scripture, which I just quoted, not all people are children of God.
In fact, according to scripture, Jesus said that you can not inherit that kingdom of God unless you are baptized in Jesus' name. It says that no man can come to the Father unless he first goes through him first.
the idea of a child or person in an immature mindset was deemed as unworthy of being born again, because they were unaware of sin. Hence why the bible says of mature mind. Therefore it is true that there are those that can be children of Satan, or the word Antichrist would likely not exist.
I'm not here to discuss my denomination, but to point out what scripture said.
I am unsure if the snake thing was real or not (leaning towards not real and just allegorical)...but if it was real, Eve most likely ate some shrooms in the Garden of Eden. Explain a talking snake that has a lawyer tongue that tried to convince a naked woman to eat some magical fruit?
Obviously, she was tripping.
I'm joking about 95%.
Really, though, the snake was "possesed" by Lucifer. That's what I would call "common christian" interpretation.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I am unsure if the snake thing was real or not (leaning towards not real and just allegorical)...but if it was real, Eve most likely ate some shrooms in the Garden of Eden. Explain a talking snake that has a lawyer tongue that tried to convince a naked woman to eat some magical fruit?Obviously, she was tripping.
I'm joking about 95%.
Really, though, the snake was "possesed" by Lucifer. That's what I would call "common christian" interpretation.