Father and the Son?!??!

[Bishka]

In my Christian history class we were talking about this today.

I assume all Christians refer to God being the Father, correct? Let's just leave out the trinity part and think of this. God was the Father, and Jesus was the Son. In order to be a father, you would have had to be a son, correct? So, doesn't that mean God the Father, was once the Son(not Jesus specifically, but A son), and that God the Father has a father?

Just thoughts...Anyone's view on this? I know this is a LDS Church doctrine, so please no insults on that, but just think about what I said, what do you think about it?

 

[Buttons*]

In my Christian history class we were talking about this today.

I assume all Christians refer to God being the Father, correct? Let's just leave out the trinity part and think of this. God was the Father, and Jesus was the Son. In order to be a father, you would have had to be a son, correct? So, doesn't that mean God the Father, was once the Son(not Jesus specifically, but A son), and that God the Father has a father?

Just thoughts...Anyone's view on this? I know this is a LDS Church doctrine, so please no insults on that, but just think about what I said, what do you think about it?

I'd say that's using your intellect *smiles* Keep thinking! Expand your mind, Becky, expand!

 

[Aqualung]

Not necessarily. For humans, yes, you would have to have been a son. But Father just means "someone who has a son." It actually says nothing about his previous son-ness or anything.

 

[Master Vigil]

In my personal opinion, from what I can gather Jesus had a very close relationship with his father (like any son would have during that time). But I also am of the opinion that Joseph died while Jesus was still young, probably early teens. And when the holy spirit came upon him, and he understood god, the relationship was very much like his with his father. Thus he called god "father."

My opinion of course, so take it as you may.

 

[dawny0826]

In my Christian history class we were talking about this today.

I assume all Christians refer to God being the Father, correct? Let's just leave out the trinity part and think of this. God was the Father, and Jesus was the Son. In order to be a father, you would have had to be a son, correct? So, doesn't that mean God the Father, was once the Son(not Jesus specifically, but A son), and that God the Father has a father?

Just thoughts...Anyone's view on this? I know this is a LDS Church doctrine, so please no insults on that, but just think about what I said, what do you think about it?

No, I don't believe that God has a father. God IS God...always has been and always will be. And it's my belief that Jesus Christ, WAS God in the flesh. And it's by HIS blood that we are redeemed.

 

[madkatz]

Well that is an interesting way to look at it. If I remember correctly somewhere in the bible God created us in his own image, which if you interpret that the right way, the way your looking at it could make sense.

 

[Bishka]

No, I don't believe that God has a father. God IS God...always has been and always will be. And it's my belief that Jesus Christ, WAS God in the flesh. And it's by HIS blood that we are redeemed.

But I'm saying how could God always be? If He has a Son shouldn't He have a father also?

 

[dawny0826]

But I'm saying how could God always be? If He has a Son shouldn't He have a father also?

God is a mystery...this is part of his mystery. I doubt, while in the flesh...you'll ever get a concrete enough answer to this question.

 

[Bishka]

God is a mystery...this is part of his mystery. I doubt, while in the flesh...you'll ever get a concrete enough answer to this question.

I believe He had a father. Why would their be family units if He didn't or if the family wasn't important enough. There would be no point in families if they weren't decreed(spelling?) by God.

 

[dawny0826]

I believe He had a father. Why would their be family units if He didn't or if the family wasn't important enough. There would be no point in families if they weren't decreed(spelling?) by God.

We're entitled to our own beliefs. That's what makes this place so interesting.

But I personally, don't believe that God...our Almighty God had to be created by something to create the concept of families. I believe he was mighty and great enough on his own to invent such a concept.

 

[dawny0826]

We're entitled to our own beliefs. That's what makes this place so interesting.

But I personally, don't believe that God...our Almight God had to be created by something to create the concept of families. I believe he was mighty and great enough on his own to invent such a concept.

Fruther, God didn't begin with families on earth...he began with one man...Adam...

 

[Bishka]

Fruther, God didn't begin with families on earth...he began with one man...Adam...

Well, it's true we all have our different beliefs, yet I believe families are eternal and always have been. I still think it's an idea to think about, were did God come form, who create Him? If God gave a man and a woman to create people on earth, shouldn't God also have a 'woman' so-to-speak?

 

[dawny0826]

Well, it's true we all have our different beliefs, yet I believe families are eternal and always have been. I still think it's an idea to think about, were did God come form, who create Him? If God gave a man and a woman to create people on earth, shouldn't God also have a 'woman' so-to-speak?

I don't feel so, but I respect you for your opinion.

 

[kreeden]

Well , according to Luke , Mark , and Matthew , this is what Jesus said about marriage

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels.

So , to me that would imply that there would be no children ???

 

[Bishka]

Well , according to Luke , Mark , and Matthew , this is what Jesus said about marriage

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels.

So , to me that would imply that there would be no children ???

I don't believe so

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

This is out of the KJV version used by the LDS church, does that give any more light to the subject?

 

[kreeden]

I had used the NIV of the Bible , but it appears that they say close to the same thing . My point was that three of the Gospels imply that there will be no more marrage in Heaven , so that could imply that the rules are different there , couldn't it ?

Now I have no idea what Heaven is like , nor what the laws would be . Ok , perhaps a small idea ? I'm just pointing out that there are different possibilities .

 

[Bishka]

I had used the NIV of the Bible , but it appears that they say close to the same thing . My point was that three of the Gospels imply that there will be no more marrage in Heaven , so that could imply that the rules are different there , couldn't it ?

Now I have no idea what Heaven is like , nor what the laws would be . Ok , perhaps a small idea ? I'm just pointing out that there are different possibilities .

I know, but I believe I know sort of what heaven is like. I believe I have an eternal marriage, which is for time and all eternity. So I believe there are marriages in heaven. That brings me to the point of families and such, in my belief in makes sense.

 

[dawny0826]

Actually, my belief and from I've been taught is that in heaven...there will be no individual families...there is ONE family...In Christ.

It's interesting to learn what others believe. So, the LDS believe that in heaven, there will be family units...your husband and children on earth will be your husband and children in heaven?

When you marry, are your marriage vows different from that of non-LDS? Do you not use the traditional "'til death do us part" vows? I'm kind of curious.

 

[Bishka]

Actually, my belief and from I've been taught is that in heaven...there will be no individual families...there is ONE family...In Christ.

It's interesting to learn what others believe. So, the LDS believe that in heaven, there will be family units...your husband and children on earth will be your husband and children in heaven?

When you marry, are your marriage vows different from that of non-LDS? Do you not use the traditional "'til death do us part" vows? I'm kind of curious.

No, actually we believe we will be one big family, because many of us will be sealed together. I'd probably ask Johnny, Katzpur or Soyleche on this, I get things wrong a lot, so don't take my word for it. I would PM them. No, we do not say "till death do us part" we are for "time and eternity".

 

[dawny0826]

No, we do not say "till death do us part" we are for "time and eternity".

I thought so...and that makes perfect sense...true to your beliefs.