Discourse On The Trinity Mystery With Three Questions:

[FerventGodSeeker]

How do you explain Christ showing His resurrected physical body? What purpose did that serve if Christ/God is not a physical entity? Further if God is not a physical entity why would he create us, his children, as physical beings?

The reason Christ had a physical body was because He took on that form in the Incarnation. Jesus was and is fully God and fully man. He obviously had to assume a human body in order to be completely human. As for why God created us as physical beings while God is non-physical, I have no idea why God chose to do things the way He did. However, to assume that just because the universe is physical or we are physical, must mean that God is physical, does not necesarily follow, as God is omnipotent and can do whatever He chooses even if He is immaterial.

What exactly to you mean by divinely "one'?

Let me quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the official authorized teachings of the RCC), hopefully it will clarify:

"The Church uses the term "substance" (also rendered at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others. The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence, or nature." Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 252-253.
If that doesn't clarify it a bit more, I'll try to explain it in more detail in my own words.

The point is that any other gods that may exist are not pertinent to our existance or salvation so mention of them is not necessary or often appropriate since our Father is our one God and the only author of our salvation.

Except that the potential reality of other Gods IS significant, or else God wouldn't constantly keep insisting that He is and always was the One and only God, as He does time and time again throughout Scripture. If it wasn't significant, He wouldn't keep denying it.

Hebrews 1: 2. [/font]Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.

Jesus may very well have actually realized the creation by Himself, but this verse seems to indicate that He did it under the direction of the Father, or in other words that the Father created the worlds by or through His son.

I do not deny that the members of the Godhead worked together to create the universe, such is clear from Scripture. However, the fact that the Father created the universe with the Son does not lessen the divinity of either one, nor does it make them any less essentially One.

Correct, though I would argue that the statement in parenthesis is not clear whether it is a reference to the "called" gods or a declaration that there are indeed many true gods.

I would argue that, based on the context of references to "so-called gods", the parenthetical statement is a reference to such gods. It wouldn't make much sense for Paul to be going on about how there's only one God can the rest are just fakes, but then out of the corner of his mouth (so to speak) whisper, "well, yeah, there are other gods out there, but let's not worry about that." That would undermine His whole point in context that Jehovah God is the one and only true God.

Either way the fact that we can be heirs to God implies that we can become gods on some level and in that sense there there are or will be many gods.

Becoming "like God" in the sense that He perfects us and glorifies us does not mean we become Gods. You would have to specify just how "God-like" you think we can become.

By oneness here I wasn't referring to His nature. I was referring to the fact that for us there is one God or Godhead.

Except God's Oneness is part of His nature by definition. A huge part of who God is is the fact that He is One, and He is God alone. God isn't just one "for us", He is truly is one in an absolute sense.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Polaris]

The reason Christ had a physical body was because He took on that form in the Incarnation. Jesus was and is fully God and fully man. He obviously had to assume a human body in order to be completely human. As for why God created us as physical beings while God is non-physical, I have no idea why God chose to do things the way He did. However, to assume that just because the universe is physical or we are physical, must mean that God is physical, does not necesarily follow, as God is omnipotent and can do whatever He chooses even if He is immaterial.​

What really doesn't make sense to me concerning your belief that God is immaterial is the resurrection. I could accept that an immaterial God would for whatever reason create physical children, but what purpose does the resurrection (the reuniting of our spirirt with our physical body) serve? How can we possibly be heirs to God when we are not even of the same substance? And what of Christ, does he or does he not now have a physical resurrected body? What is the point of the resurrection?

Let me propose an explanation that in my opinion makes much more sense. God is a physical being. He has a glorified and perfected body that in no way limits His omniscience. He indeed created us in His image, not exactly like him -- He is glorified, perfect, and immortal, but in his physical image and likeness. We are here to learn and grow and become more like our Father through learning of Him, keeping His commandments, and partaking of the blessings of the atonement of Jesus Christ that we might repent of and overcome our sins. After death and at the appointed time we will be resurrected and recieve an incorruptable and immortal body more like that of our Father, and like Christ's as recorded in the N.T. All of this with the intent that we might actually become like our Father and enjoy all that he has, dependent on our worthiness. We will never equal Him in authority and glory, but we have the potential to become very much like him as we are His offspring.

Let me quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the official authorized teachings of the RCC), hopefully it will clarify:

"The Church uses the term "substance" (also rendered at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others. The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence, or nature." Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 252-253.
If that doesn't clarify it a bit more, I'll try to explain it in more detail in my own words.

This still seems to be a pretty hand-wavy description of the nature of the Godhead, but I think I understand what you are getting at.

Except that the potential reality of other Gods IS significant, or else God wouldn't constantly keep insisting that He is and always was the One and only God, as He does time and time again throughout Scripture. If it wasn't significant, He wouldn't keep denying it.

For all intents and purposes God is the only God. Though I believe that other gods exist -- they are only Lords over their creations and have no stewardship over us. So in essence they are not Gods to us. God insists that He is one because He is the only one who can provide salvation to us. No other being or thing can bring about our salvation.

Just so you know we are drifting away from official LDS beliefs. Very little has been revealed concerning the potential existance of other gods because it simply is not pertinent for our existance and our salvation.

I do not deny that the members of the Godhead worked together to create the universe, such is clear from Scripture. However, the fact that the Father created the universe with the Son does not lessen the divinity of either one, nor does it make them any less essentially One.

I agree.

I would argue that, based on the context of references to "so-called gods", the parenthetical statement is a reference to such gods. It wouldn't make much sense for Paul to be going on about how there's only one God can the rest are just fakes, but then out of the corner of his mouth (so to speak) whisper, "well, yeah, there are other gods out there, but let's not worry about that." That would undermine His whole point in context that Jehovah God is the one and only true God.

It wouldn't undermine His whole point. His statement could be interpreted that though other true gods exist, for us there is but one God who has charge over us and we are subject only to Him. The point is still firmly in tact.

Becoming "like God" in the sense that He perfects us and glorifies us does not mean we become Gods. You would have to specify just how "God-like" you think we can become.

Again very few details have been revealed concerning this topic because it doesn't directly effect our salvation or our progression in this life. I honestly don't know how God-like we can become, but the fact that we are potential heirs to God and that we are the offspring of God doesn't really put a cap on our potential. I do believe, however, that we can never become equals with God because His creations and glory are ever increasing and He will forever be our God.

Except God's Oneness is part of His nature by definition. A huge part of who God is is the fact that He is One, and He is God alone. God isn't just one "for us", He is truly is one in an absolute sense.

Yes, he is absolutely the only one who can bring about our salvation so He is absolutely our only God.

​

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

What really doesn't make sense to me concerning your belief that God is immaterial is the resurrection. I could accept that an immaterial God would for whatever reason create physical children, but what purpose does the resurrection (the reuniting of our spirirt with our physical body) serve? How can we possibly be heirs to God when we are not even of the same substance? And what of Christ, does he or does he not now have a physical resurrected body? What is the point of the resurrection?

​

If you can understand that an immaterial God would create physical humans for whatever reason, then I would assume you could also understand why He might want to restore those physical beings once they fell away. The point of our resurrection (or at least part of it), is to restore our complete fellowship with God and make us totally perfect. He created us as physical beings to follow Him and not sin, and thus He will restore the saved to that state. I believe Christ has a physical body because He was Incarnated onto the earth (i.e., took on a human nature) in order to pay the penalty of human sin. His physical body was resurrected to show His power over sin and death, and to show His followers that one day we can be like Him, sharing in His glory, including our physical bodies.

"Behold, I tell you a mystery: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed--in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." 1 Corinthians 15:51-53

Let me propose an explanation that in my opinion makes much more sense. God is a physical being. He has a glorified and perfected body that in no way limits His omniscience.

But wouldn't that limit His omnipresence? Physical matter cannot be in multiple places at once.

After death and at the appointed time we will be resurrected and recieve an incorruptable and immortal body more like that of our Father, and like Christ's as recorded in the N.T.

Where in the New Testament does it say that the Father has a body?

For all intents and purposes God is the only God.

Again, that's placing a condition on God's singularity. God isn't just God "for all intents and purposes". He literally is and always has been the one and only God.

Though I believe that other gods exist -- they are only Lords over their creations and have no stewardship over us.

Why do you believe that other gods exist?

So in essence they are not Gods to us. God insists that He is one because He is the only one who can provide salvation to us. No other being or thing can bring about our salvation.

That's because only God can provide salvation--and He is the only God

Just so you know we are drifting away from official LDS beliefs. Very little has been revealed concerning the potential existance of other gods because it simply is not pertinent for our existance and our salvation.

If it is not an official LDS belief that there are other gods, then why do you believe there are? Does that mean you came to such a conclusion apart from the teachings of the LDS church?

It wouldn't undermine His whole point. His statement could be interpreted that though other true gods exist, for us there is but one God who has charge over us and we are subject only to Him. The point is still firmly in tact.

The point isn't intact if other gods exist. Paul just said in the context of the passage that Jehovah God is the one and only God, and other gods are fakes, simply "so-called gods". Saying "by the way, there really ARE other gods" obviously undermines his point.

Again very few details have been revealed concerning this topic because it doesn't directly effect our salvation or our progression in this life. I honestly don't know how God-like we can become, but the fact that we are potential heirs to God and that we are the offspring of God doesn't really put a cap on our potential. I do believe, however, that we can never become equals with God because His creations and glory are ever increasing and He will forever be our God.

So you are saying, if I understand, that we can become very much like God, but we will never be equals with God, correct? You also believe that our God was once a man like us on another planet, who later became God, correct? If this is true, does that mean that there is another God greater than our God, which our God serves, and has become "like" that God, but will never be equal to that God, just as we will never be equal to our God?

Yes, he is absolutely the only one who can bring about our salvation so He is absolutely our only God.

No, He is not simply OUR only God. He is the only God period. God's oneness and singularity is not dependant on our perspective. God was the one and only God before we ever came into the picture, and He remains so forever.

​

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Polaris]

He created us as physical beings to follow Him and not sin, and thus He will restore the saved to that state. I believe Christ has a physical body because He was Incarnated onto the earth (i.e., took on a human nature) in order to pay the penalty of human sin. His physical body was resurrected to show His power over sin and death, and to show His followers that one day we can be like Him, sharing in His glory, including our physical bodies.

That doesn't explain why God created us as physical beings. Could we not follow him as spiritual beings? Why didnt' God just create us as spirit-only beings so we could really be like Him. How can we really be like Him if He is spirit-only and we are physical?

But wouldn't that limit His omnipresence? Physical matter cannot be in multiple places at once.

We don't know what, if anything, can limit God. I could just as easily pose this question -- if he is immaterial how is anyone ever able to feel, see, or hear him? He is obviously able to defy the laws of physics as we know them.

Where in the New Testament does it say that the Father has a body?

Where does it say that He doesn't have a body? He said he made man in His image in the context of a physical creation. There are numerous passages that refer to physical attributes (finger, mouth, face, etc).

So you are saying, if I understand, that we can become very much like God, but we will never be equals with God, correct? You also believe that our God was once a man like us on another planet, who later became God, correct?

Both statements are correct.

If this is true, does that mean that there is another God greater than our God, which our God serves, and has become "like" that God, but will never be equal to that God, just as we will never be equal to our God?

That much has not been revealed. Though I for one am open to that possibility as I believe that it makes sense.

Let me explain for you why I believe that other gods exist and why I believe that we may become gods. First, the scriptures that I have already referred to that state that we are heirs of God and the offspring of God strongly imply that we can become like our Father -- even gods. Second, the doctrine that we can become gods has been revealed to LDS prophets in these latter-days, and though not part of canonized scripture some have even taught that God was once a mortal man who lived, died, was resurrected and glorified and became God in a process similar to that which we may follow. Reason suggests that others may have been given this opportunity as well. Lastly I believe it because it simply makes sense. If God is really our Father and if He really does love us He would want us to have all that He has, or at least make it available to us - just as any loving father would. I believe that He wants us to have all the happiness and fulfillment that He enjoys and so has provided a way that we may overcome sin and death and eventually learn and gain all that He has for us.

Do you have kids? I have two little boys and I can't envision a loving parent who doesn't want everything for their kids -- even more that what they have themselves. I could not be completely happy if my children were confined to some state of existance less than my own. You can deny that we can ever become gods and that there is a way prepared that engenders the creation of gods, but I'll remain open to the possibility (as its supported by scripture and by living prophets) until I hear authoratively otherwise.

 

[Quiddity]

How can we really be like Him if He is spirit-only and we are physical?

Cause we don't believe He is spirit-only.

 

[Squirt]

"The Church uses the term "substance" (also rendered at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

Would you mind elaborating just a bit on the word "substance" (or "essence"). I think this is the single greatest issue we Latter-day Saints have with the God of the creeds. If you could, please explain how you are using this word and what you believe it means with respect to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. To me the words substance and essence are essentially synonymous, and imply physical makeup, whereas "nature" seems to be pertaining to non-physical qualities or attributes.

(By the way, did you forget your one-on-one debate with me? )

 

[iris89]

Hi FerventGodSeeker

FIRST, I do NOT like being falsely accused by one who is in error. Your comment is totally unacceptable,

"? That is a gigantic cop-out, and you know it.

I gave you the link to my research article on Early Christians, now go to it and knock off the false accusations:

http://love.proboards9.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=religious&thread=1145288217&page=1

SECOND, Early one in the early Christian church many diverted from the truth and had their own opinions, but those opinions did NOT reconcile with the Bible. Some of this divergence was even politically induced as brought out in a Bible dictionary:

During the period of persecution that the early Christian congregation experienced at the hands of the Roman Empire, professed Christians were at times induced to deny their Christian discipleship, and those who did so were required to signify their apostasy by making an incense offering before some pagan god or by openly blaspheming the name of Christ.[source – Insight on the Bible, Vol. 1]

It is inevitable some went with the pagan flow of things, so what?

THIRD, Humans do NOT have immortality so get real.

FOURTH, Your misleading statement,

"Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I AM." John 8:58 (cf. Exodus 3:14, when God makes the same claim about Himself)

First, the new testament word used at John 8:58 is a simple statement of fact with respect Jesus’ (Yeshua’s) prior existance in heaven.
Second, the words used in the Old Testment at Exodus 3:14 were entirely different.
Third, go to the following and read my research article on the subject:

http://pub16.ezboard.com/fwwwchristiansareuscombiblestudy.showMessage?topicID=653.topic

FIFTH, With respect John 17:5:
Commentary on Twelve Scriptures the Un-Steadfast Struggle With:
We will now deal with a group of twelve scriptures that often misguided individuals use to claim that Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) are one-and-the-same individual and/or different manifestation of one being, but all they really show is that Jesus (Yeshua) was created by his Father (YHWH) long before the earth was created; And that he dwelt there with his Father (YHWH) for untold eons before the start of creation on the earth. Now here are the scriptures the misguided ones so often use quite wrongly:
THE first six clearly show he had a pre-human existence in heaven with his Father (YHWH):
John 6:62 What then if ye should be hold the Son of man ascending where he was before?
John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 3:13 And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven even the Son of man, who is in heaven.
John 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
Ephesians 4:10 He that ascended, what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth?
THE second set of six clearly show Jesus (Yeshua) was an obedient Son to his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) who loved him dearly, and was sent by his Father on an assignment to earth. This clearly shows his Father (YHWH) is the superior one and they are not co-equal:
1 Peter 1:20 who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of the times for your sake.
John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for he giveth not the Spirit by measure.
John 7:16 Jesus therefore answered them, and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me.
John 7:28-29 Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he is. 28 Jesus therefore cried in the temple, teaching and saying, Ye both know me, and know whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.
John 8:29 And he that sent me is with me; he hath not left me alone; for I do always the things that are pleasing to him.
John 17:24-25 Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew thee; and these knew that thou didst send me. [All the above scriptures are from the American Standard Version]
Clearly the second set of six scriptures show just the exact opposite from what the misguided ones try to show with them. They show, FIRST, that the Father (YHWY) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) are two distinct individuals; SECOND, the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) is subordinate and obedient to his Father (YHWH) who loves him, and that Jesus (Yeshua) is given orders or directions by his Father (YHWH); hence NO Co-equality between them. Now the question left to be asked is, y whom have these misguided ones been mislead?
These misguided ones have been mislead by none other than the god of this system or world per 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (Authorized King James Bible; AV); due to their not seeking sound doctrine per Titus 2:1, "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (AV)) use to falsely claim, to warp the scriptures to fit their false doctrines and myths, Almighty God (YHWH) and His Son, the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) are one and the same individual and/or manifestations of same. When in fact they are two distinct individuals as plainly shown by Jesus (Yeshua) with what he said at John 14:28, "Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than I." (ASV); to wit, clearly showing Jesus (Yeshua) as the subordinate and His Father (YHWH) as the superior one who was greater than himself. Also, we all know a father and a son are two different individuals.
.
Now I think that is all space will allow.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi Polaris
You are correct, they are two distinct spirit beings, and that is why the term father and son. Remember, God (YHWH) used over 40 faithful men as scribes to put his thoughts into the words of men, and ever since some have been trying to twist these words and say they have some special or different meaning which is simply not true.
Take for example Revelation 22:13 and other scriptures that another poster mentioned. I wrote a commentary clearly showing their distinct nature as follows:
Commentary on Two Sets of Parallel Scriptures that differentiate between the Father (YHWH) and his Son, the Son of God (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua) Christ:
ONES DEALING WITH THE FATHER (YHWH):
Deuteronomy 33:27 The eternal God is thy dwelling-place, And underneath are the everlasting arms: And he thrust out the enemy from before thee, And said, Destroy.
Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God.
ONES DEALING WITH THE SON, THE SON OF GOD, JESUS (YESHUA):
Revelation 1:17-18 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, 18 and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.
Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (American Standard Version; ASV)
We shall examine both sets and see the difference and the parallels with respect scriptures dealing strictly with the Father (YHWH), and those dealing strictly with the Son, the Son of God (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua). Deuteronomy 33:27 is interesting in that it uses the phrase, "underneath are the everlasting arms," showing God (YHWH) always existed; with this highlighted at Psalms 46:11, "Jehovah of hosts is with us; The God of Jacob is our refuge." (ASV); which is tied to Psalms 90:1-2, "Lord, thou hast been our dwelling-place In all generations. (ASV) 2 Before the mountains were made, or the earth and the world was formed; from eternity and to eternity thou art God." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible - note in this Bible the scripture is at Psalms 89:2; DRCB). This scripture in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible clearly shows that God (YHWH) if from eternity; therefore, without a beginning; And this truth is further affirmed at Psalms 125:2 (Psalms 124:2 in Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible), "As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, So Jehovah is round about his people, From this time forth and forevermore." (ASV); And at Psalms 93:2 (Psalms 92:2 in Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible), "Thy throne is prepared from of old: thou art from everlasting." (ASV); And Isaiah 40:28, "Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard? The everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary; there is no searching of his understanding." (ASV); And Jeremiah 10:10, "But Jehovah is the true God; he is the living God, and an everlasting King: at his wrath the earth trembleth, and the nations are not able to abide his indignation." (ASV). We will later see that Almighty God (YHWH) gives his Son, Jesus (Yeshua), an assignment and the power to carry it out, and upon its completion he gives the kingdom he has made to his Father (YHWH), the superior one, and re-subjects himself to him as the Son of God is neither co-equal or co-eternal with his Father (YHWH). Now let's look at the two parallel scriptures dealing with the Son.
Revelation 1:17-18, previously quoted, refers to the Son of God (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua), and is tied to Revelation 22:13, also, previously quoted. In reference to the Son of God (YHWH), the "I am the Alpha and the Omega," clearly does NOT refer to all of eternity as it does when used with respect to his Father (YHWH) at Revelation 1:8, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end," says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty." (The Conracternity Edition of The New Testament; CETNT) as made clear at Revelations 1:4-5, "John to the seven churches that are in Asia; Grace to you and peace, from him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits that are before his throne; 5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood; 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to hem be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (ASV); herein, clearly showing that Jesus' (Yeshua's) God was his own Father (YHWH), "and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father," Once more showing his subjection to His Father (YHWH) as a superior one with whom Jesus (Yeshua) thou very powerful in his own right was NOT co-equal with.
Now let's look at his assignment, and his turnover of the kingdom at the end of his assignment to his Father, Almighty God (YHWH). We find the details at 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (AV), testifies that God (YHWH) had given his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) over all except himself when the scripture says "it is manifest that he is excepted." Clearly showing they were distinct individuals and that the Father (YHWH) was the superior one; hence they were not CO-EQUAL.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi FerventGodSeeker,

FIRST, You say that Polaris does not understand the false doctrine of the Trinity, but your post to Polaris clearly shows that you also do not understand this doctrine. Now let’s go look at the facts with respect what it is from an authoritative source.
The Trinitarian dogma, The Cyclopoedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York 1871, by John M'Clintock and James Strong, Vol. II, page 560-561, states, "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.....The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal...So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty...So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God...The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding...And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal. So that in all things, as is afore said, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity." [this is the Athanasian Creed quoted in the above mentioned Cyclopoedia].

SECOND, Your comment is in error per the above and reality,

one God alone, who has revealed Himself and exists as 3 distinct persons.

God (YHWH) is never spoken of as other than a singular entity in the Bible. For more information on this subject by the world’s expert, Dr. Gerard Gertoux, President of the French Bible Society, Who wrote a book on the subject, "The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which Is Pronounced As It Is Written I_Eh_Ou_Ah", go to:

http://love.proboards9.com/index.cgi?board=growingup&action=display&thread=1141753369

THIRD, On Isaiah 44:24 and similar scriptures, here are the facts:
A Jewish superstition caused Almighty God's (YHWH's) name to be substituted with substitutes in many ancient scrolls, and the un-steadfast wrestle with these instead of trying to gain understanding, but some translations have put the proper name back in where it belongs such as the American Standard Version, ASV; and The Restored Name Bible, and the New World Translation, NWT; and is some places The Living Bible or Holman Standard Christian Bible as either Jehovah or Yahweh where the Tetragrammaton or God's name (YHWH) was in the original. We shall now consider some places in the Bible where this occurred:
…
Isaiah 44:24:
AV: "Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I (am) the Lord that maketh all (things); that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself:'
ASV: "Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb: I am Jehovah, that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth (who is with me?)"
[for brevity, only pertinent parts of the scripture will be given from here on, but the reader is urged to go check them out in both the King James Bible, AV; and the American Standard Version, ASV]
[[Now due to space limitations the article can not appear here in its entirety, so go to:

http://love.proboards9.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=religious&thread=1145457064 A Jewish Superstition Causes Misleading Substitution

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi Squirt

You should look at the word ‘essence’ used in context to gain an understanding, here is an example from a historical reference work:

My'thos is the opposite of a·le'thei·a, "truth," signifying the manifested, veritable essence of a matter. At Galatians 2:5 "the truth of the good news" contrasts the true teaching of the gospel with perversions of it. The apostles warned Christians against the danger of being turned away from the truth to false stories, as these had no basis in fact but were the imaginations of men. Judaism was filled with such false stories, the traditions of the elders making up the so-called oral law that came to be incorporated into the Talmud. Judaism, the leading opponent of Christianity in the first century, had been greatly influenced by pagan philosophies and teachings.
As an example of one of these false stories, consider this from the Palestinian (Jerusalem) Talmud: "R. Samuel b. Nahman in the name of R. Jonathan said: The tables [on which Moses received the Ten Commandments] were six hand-breadths long and three wide: and Moses was holding two hand-breadths, and God two, so that there were two hand-breadths interval between their fingers; and when the Israelites were adoring the calf, God sought to snatch the tables away from Moses’ hands; but Moses’ hands were so powerful that he snatched them from Him." The story continues that then "the letters flew off" the tablets; as a result, since "the writing was sustaining them," the tablets "became too heavy for Moses’ hands, and fell, and were broken."—[source - Ta`anit, V, pp. 116, 117, translated by A. W. Greenup].

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi Squirt

You should look at the word ‘essence’ used in context to gain an understanding, here is an example from a historical reference work:

My'thos is the opposite of a·le'thei·a, "truth," signifying the manifested, veritable essence of a matter. At Galatians 2:5 "the truth of the good news" contrasts the true teaching of the gospel with perversions of it. The apostles warned Christians against the danger of being turned away from the truth to false stories, as these had no basis in fact but were the imaginations of men. Judaism was filled with such false stories, the traditions of the elders making up the so-called oral law that came to be incorporated into the Talmud. Judaism, the leading opponent of Christianity in the first century, had been greatly influenced by pagan philosophies and teachings.
As an example of one of these false stories, consider this from the Palestinian (Jerusalem) Talmud: "R. Samuel b. Nahman in the name of R. Jonathan said: The tables [on which Moses received the Ten Commandments] were six hand-breadths long and three wide: and Moses was holding two hand-breadths, and God two, so that there were two hand-breadths interval between their fingers; and when the Israelites were adoring the calf, God sought to snatch the tables away from Moses’ hands; but Moses’ hands were so powerful that he snatched them from Him." The story continues that then "the letters flew off" the tablets; as a result, since "the writing was sustaining them," the tablets "became too heavy for Moses’ hands, and fell, and were broken."—[source - Ta`anit, V, pp. 116, 117, translated by A. W. Greenup].

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

That doesn't explain why God created us as physical beings. Could we not follow him as spiritual beings? Why didnt' God just create us as spirit-only beings so we could really be like Him. How can we really be like Him if He is spirit-only and we are physical?

Because God is not spirit-only. The second person of the Trinity took on a physical human nature, and we will become like Him when we are glorified in heaven.

We don't know what, if anything, can limit God. I could just as easily pose this question -- if he is immaterial how is anyone ever able to feel, see, or hear him? He is obviously able to defy the laws of physics as we know them.

Humans have been able to see, feel, and hear Him because He has made Himself known to us in ways that we can perceive. However, if He is physical yet He is constantly contradicting His own physicality by being constantly omnipresent, then there's really no functional purpose to His being physical. He's acting in reality as a spirit which is not limited by physical space. So why assert the fact that He has a body so emphatically?

Where does it say that He doesn't have a body?

"God is Spirit..." John 4:24
"Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." Luke 24:29
God is Spirit, which means by definition that He is immaterial.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." Col. 1:15

So does God have an INVISIBLE, physical body?

You said that the NT records that we will have a body like the Father's and like Christ's...again, where in the NT does it say the Father has a body?

He said he made man in His image in the context of a physical creation. There are numerous passages that refer to physical attributes (finger, mouth, face, etc).

The Bible also makes references to His wings...but do you think the Father literally has wings, too? Maybe "image" has a more figurative connotation than you're giving it credit for.

That much has not been revealed. Though I for one am open to that possibility as I believe that it makes sense.

Then please explain this verse: " 'You are My witnesses,' says the LORD, 'And My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know Me and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me.' " Isaiah 43:10

Let me explain for you why I believe that other gods exist and why I believe that we may become gods. First, the scriptures that I have already referred to that state that we are heirs of God and the offspring of God strongly imply that we can become like our Father -- even gods.

As we've already discussed, becoming "like" God does not mean becoming Gods.

Second, the doctrine that we can become gods has been revealed to LDS prophets in these latter-days, and though not part of canonized scripture some have even taught that God was once a mortal man who lived, died, was resurrected and glorified and became God in a process similar to that which we may follow. Reason suggests that others may have been given this opportunity as well.

God has always been God: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." Psalm 90:2

Lastly I believe it because it simply makes sense. If God is really our Father and if He really does love us He would want us to have all that He has, or at least make it available to us - just as any loving father would. I believe that He wants us to have all the happiness and fulfillment that He enjoys and so has provided a way that we may overcome sin and death and eventually learn and gain all that He has for us.

While I agree that God wishes His children to have many good things, you already mentioned that this does not mean we will ever become equal to Him. We will never become Gods, we will always be servants of the One and Only God.

Do you have kids? I have two little boys and I can't envision a loving parent who doesn't want everything for their kids -- even more that what they have themselves. I could not be completely happy if my children were confined to some state of existance less than my own.

Unfortunately, human analogies only go so far. While God may want many awesome and wonderful things for His children, He is and will be perfectly content with the fact that He alone is God. You already agreed that we will never be equal to God. So, while you may not be content that your children have a state of existance or stature less than your own, God clearly is. Simply being admitted into God's presence is more love than any of us deserve, and to expect that He could only be truly loving if He made us Gods is a bit self-centered.

You can deny that we can ever become gods and that there is a way prepared that engenders the creation of gods, but I'll remain open to the possibility (as its supported by scripture and by living prophets) until I hear authoratively otherwise.

I thought you just said that such teachings were NOT part of canonical Scripture and were not fully endorsed or revealed to the LDS prophets?

FerventGodSeeker

P.S. - Sorry this response took so long, I've been distracted on another thread.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Hi FerventGodSeeker,

FIRST, You say that Polaris does not understand the false doctrine of the Trinity, but your post to Polaris clearly shows that you also do not understand this doctrine. Now let’s go look at the facts with respect what it is from an authoritative source.
The Trinitarian dogma, The Cyclopoedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York 1871, by John M'Clintock and James Strong, Vol. II, page 560-561, states, "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance...

What part of this definition or the Athanasian Creed did I contradict in my post to Polaris?

SECOND, Your comment is in error per the above and reality,

God (YHWH) is never spoken of as other than a singular entity in the Bible.

"Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;" Gen. 1:26
"Come let Us go down and there confuse their language..." Genesis 11:7
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," Matthew 28:19 (notice the singular "name" for all three persons)

 

[Polaris]

Because God is not spirit-only. The second person of the Trinity took on a physical human nature, and we will become like Him when we are glorified in heaven.

So God the Father is immaterial, yet He is not spirit-only. Please explain that one to me -- it makes no sense.

Humans have been able to see, feel, and hear Him because He has made Himself known to us in ways that we can perceive.

That's exactly my point -- you're implying he is not limited to physics as we understand it -- an immaterial being should not be able to be seen or heard.

However, if He is physical yet He is constantly contradicting His own physicality by being constantly omnipresent, then there's really no functional purpose to His being physical. He's acting in reality as a spirit which is not limited by physical space. So why assert the fact that He has a body so emphatically?

Please show me an instance in scripture where He was tangibly witnessed in two separate places at once. I believe His presence and power can be felt omnipresently.

"God is Spirit..." John 4:24
"Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." Luke 24:29
God is Spirit, which means by definition that He is immaterial.

First you are making quite an assumption that the contextual meaning of the word "spirit" is the same for both of these verses. I could easily say that I am a Spirit -- my spirit is the part that drives me and gives me life -- hence I'm a spirit. That does not mean in any way that I don't have a physical body. Secondly in John 4:24 Jesus is teaching that we must worship God in spirit because He is a spiritual being (not necessarily spirit-only). Through the spirit is the only way we can truly worship him, so in this context it makes perfect sense to say that God is Spirit without implying that He doesn't have a body.

Again you seem to contradict yourself. Do you not believe that Jesus and God are one? How can He then have flesh and bones and yet be immaterial?

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." Col. 1:15

I believe this means invisible as in the God who we don't see (because He doesn't just show Himself to people except in speical circumstances), not as in the God who can't be seen.

So does God have an INVISIBLE, physical body?

No. Stephen's vision made this quite clear as he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. This shows quite convincingly that they are separate individuals that can be seen.

You said that the NT records that we will have a body like the Father's and like Christ's...again, where in the NT does it say the Father has a body?

I said that the NT teaches that we will have a resurrected body like that of Christ's -- incorruptable and immortal. There are no passages that explicitly say that the Father "has a body", but there are many scriptures that strongly indicate that He does (ie those that make reference to his body parts, and the fact that we're made in his image). There are no scriptures that say "he has no body".

The Bible also makes references to His wings...but do you think the Father literally has wings, too? Maybe "image" has a more figurative connotation than you're giving it credit for.

No I don't believe he has wings -- wings are almost always referred to in a figurative sense. Fingers, a mouth, a face, a hand, etc. tend to be used in a more literal way. Maybe you are applying figurative interpretations a little too liberally.

Then please explain this verse: " 'You are My witnesses,' says the LORD, 'And My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know Me and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me.' " Isaiah 43:10

Again, who is he talking to? His people at the time of Isaiah and indirectly us. His statements make perfect sense considering who they are directed to. For us there was and will never be another God. There is no need for the text to contain a condition or qualifying statement because we all fall under that condition. The fact is neither of us can prove we're right so on this point we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As we've already discussed, becoming "like" God does not mean becoming Gods.

That's your opinion -- the fact that we are offspring of God and heirs to God implies differently.

God has always been God: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." Psalm 90:2

Again, for us he has always been and always will be God so this verse makes perfect sense. Again there is no need for a conditional statement because we all fall under that condition.

While I agree that God wishes His children to have many good things, you already mentioned that this does not mean we will ever become equal to Him. We will never become Gods, we will always be servants of the One and Only God.

Let me clarify my belief. We will never be equal to God because as we increase He increases. Also no matter how far we progress He wll always be our Father and our God. I believe that we have the potential to become equal to how God is now, but by the time we reach that point He will have increased even more.

Unfortunately, human analogies only go so far. While God may want many awesome and wonderful things for His children, He is and will be perfectly content with the fact that He alone is God. You already agreed that we will never be equal to God. So, while you may not be content that your children have a state of existance or stature less than your own, God clearly is. Simply being admitted into God's presence is more love than any of us deserve, and to expect that He could only be truly loving if He made us Gods is a bit self-centered.

My whole analogy was made from the Father's perspective. Sure if as children our only desire it to become an all-powerful God -- that is a bit self-centered -- but if our desire is to become truly like our Father -- that's not.

However, a Father who is content to restrict his children to a state of existance considerably less than His own is in my opinion a bit self-centered.

I thought you just said that such teachings were NOT part of canonical Scripture and were not fully endorsed or revealed to the LDS prophets?

The statement about God once being like man is not part of the LDS canonized scripture, but the doctrine that we may one day become gods is. All I'm saying is that there are scriptures and statements (canonized or not) by LDS prophets that support the beliefs that I've presented.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

So God the Father is immaterial, yet He is not spirit-only. Please explain that one to me -- it makes no sense.

No, I didn't say that. I said God was not Spirit-only, I did not specify God the Father. The Son is the image of the invisible God, who took on a human nature, not the Father. The Father and the Holy Spirit do not have bodies.

That's exactly my point -- you're implying he is not limited to physics as we understand it -- an immaterial being should not be able to be seen or heard.

That's not true. Light is immaterial, yet we see it. Dreams are immaterial, yet we can see them in our minds (recall that God revealed Himself a number of times in dreams and visions). Sounds are immaterial, yet we hear them.

Please show me an instance in scripture where He was tangibly witnessed in two separate places at once. I believe His presence and power can be felt omnipresently.

"And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him (Jesus), and a voice came from heaven which said, 'You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased." Luke 3:22
Jesus and the Holy Spirit, both fully God, are seen distinctly from one another. The Father, also fully God, is heard distinctly from the other two.

"No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." John 3:13
While this is not an instance where God is witnessed in two places at once, it is an indication of God's literal omnipresence. This verse is Jesus speaking on earth...yet He, while on earth, says that He is in heaven. This clearly indicates that He is able to be in more than one place at one time.

First you are making quite an assumption that the contextual meaning of the word "spirit" is the same for both of these verses.

The Greek word in both verses is pneuma...you would have to indicate how the word means different things in the two verses.

I could easily say that I am a Spirit -- my spirit is the part that drives me and gives me life -- hence I'm a spirit.

No, you couldn't say that. You could say you HAVE a spirit, that doesn't mean you ARE a spirit...big difference. You also have a body, but you are not JUST a body.

That does not mean in any way that I don't have a physical body.

Saying you ARE a spirit WOULD indicate that you don't have a physical body, as Jesus explained in the verse I just cited, "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

Secondly in John 4:24 Jesus is teaching that we must worship God in spirit because He is a spiritual being (not necessarily spirit-only). Through the spirit is the only way we can truly worship him, so in this context it makes perfect sense to say that God is Spirit without implying that He doesn't have a body.

Define how God is a "spiritual being", if this does not imply that He is a spirit, which means He has no body?

Again you seem to contradict yourself. Do you not believe that Jesus and God are one? How can He then have flesh and bones and yet be immaterial?

Yes, I believe Jesus is God. He has both a human nature and a divine nature. In His human nature, He has a physical body. However, in His divine nature, He is Spirit, and therefore is able to be omnipresent.

I believe this means invisible as in the God who we don't see (because He doesn't just show Himself to people except in speical circumstances), not as in the God who can't be seen.

Fair enough

No I don't believe he has wings -- wings are almost always referred to in a figurative sense. Fingers, a mouth, a face, a hand, etc. tend to be used in a more literal way. Maybe you are applying figurative interpretations a little too liberally.

You'll have to demonstrate how references to God's wings are different than references to His mouth, face, hands, etc. All seem quite figurative to me.

"Keep me as the apple of Your eye; hide me under the shadow of your wings," Psalm 17:8
"When I consider the heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained," Psalm 8:3
"Do not hide Your face from me; do not turn your servant away in anger; You have been my help; do not leave me or forsake me, O God of my salvation." Psalm 27:8
"Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit." Luke 23:46

Again, who is he talking to? His people at the time of Isaiah and indirectly us. His statements make perfect sense considering who they are directed to. For us there was and will never be another God. There is no need for the text to contain a condition or qualifying statement because we all fall under that condition. The fact is neither of us can prove we're right so on this point we'll just have to agree to disagree.

"Before Me there was no God formed." Even if directed at us, that couldn't be any more point blank clear. He is telling US that there was no God formed before Him. It has nothing to do contextually with us just worshipping this God, or just knowing about this God...it says point blank that no Gods were formed before Him. It also says there will be no Gods formed after Him. Even if you're going to claim that it is only directed conditionally at us, that would still mean that none of us will become Gods.

That's your opinion -- the fact that we are offspring of God and heirs to God implies differently.

It's not my opinion, it's the nature of language and the definition of words. Becoming "like" something does not mean literally BECOMING that thing. An offspring is not identical to its parent, nor is an heir identical to the one from whom he receives his inheritance.

Again, for us he has always been and always will be God so this verse makes perfect sense. Again there is no need for a conditional statement because we all fall under that condition.

What does "everlasting to everlasting" mean to you? We are told that He has been God "from everlasting to everlasting". Again, this has nothing to do with us or our perspective, it is a point blank statement.

Let me clarify my belief. We will never be equal to God because as we increase He increases. Also no matter how far we progress He wll always be our Father and our God. I believe that we have the potential to become equal to how God is now, but by the time we reach that point He will have increased even more.

How can a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, holy, righteous, and true, possibly increase in stature or power?

My whole analogy was made from the Father's perspective. Sure if as children our only desire it to become an all-powerful God -- that is a bit self-centered -- but if our desire is to become truly like our Father -- that's not.

And again, as we've covered, becoming "like" the Father doesn't mean becoming equal to Him or exactly as He is.

However, a Father who is content to restrict his children to a state of existance considerably less than His own is in my opinion a bit self-centered.

Then you obviously consider God to be self-centered, who says point blank that He alone is God and no other Gods will be formed after Him.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Jerrell]

Are you speaking of the Trinity of God?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Are you speaking of the Trinity of God?

Yes, last I checked

 

[Jerrell]

God is only a Spirit, Jesus said this, God is a Spirit. And He is a Spirit only. Sometimes he may take human form but HE himself is just a Spirit

 

[Squirt]

"God is Spirit..." John 4:24
"Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." Luke 24:29
God is Spirit, which means by definition that He is immaterial.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." Col. 1:15

So does God have an INVISIBLE, physical body?

You said that the NT records that we will have a body like the Father's and like Christ's...again, where in the NT does it say the Father has a body?


The Bible also makes references to His wings...but do you think the Father literally has wings, too? Maybe "image" has a more figurative connotation than you're giving it credit for.

GodSeeker,

God is spirit. He is also light and love. These things are some of His attributes. None of them alone define Him. The fact that He is spirit does not preclude the possibility that He also has a body. If He were an unembodied spirit, this would be the case, but it is not. Obviously, each and every one of us are spirits. If we weren't, we would not be able to worship God "in spirit and in truth." We communicate with Him spirit to Spirit.

What is "spirit" to you anyway? What does the word mean, in your opinion? I ask because I have some thoughts on this myself and would like to share them after I hear yours.

You have pointed out that the scriptures refer to the "invisible God." But the Greek word (sorry, it escapes me at the moment) is more correctly translated to mean "unseen" as opposed to "unable to be seen." And of course we all know that, for the most part, God is definitely unseen. But this does not mean that He has no physical form. Look what happened when the Apostles first saw the risen Christ on Easter morning. They were afraid because they thought that they had seen a spirit. This clearly shows that even a being that is an unemboded spirit has a form and can be seen. The Apostles knew that Christ's spirit had left His body when He died. That spirit is what they assumed they were seeing.

As far as where in the New Testament we are told that the Father has a body, I think that the most obvious place is where we are told that Jesus is "the express image of [the Father's] person." The Son looks like the Father. How much more clearly could it possibly be stated?

Of course we don't believe that the Father has wings. But we do believe He has a face, feet, hands, and a back. In the Old Testament, we are told that the Lord spoke to Moses "face to face, as a man speaketh unto a friend." Without coming right out and saying, "God the Father is a physical being who has a human appearance," the scriptures could not possibly have provided us with much more evidence than it has that this is the case. I don't think the Latter-day Saints are the ones who are misinterpreting the scriptures in this case. Obviously there is much in the Bible that is figurative, but why assume that something that makes logical sense when interpreted literally should be re-interpreted figuratively?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

GodSeeker,

God is spirit. He is also light and love. These things are some of His attributes. None of them alone define Him. The fact that He is spirit does not preclude the possibility that He also has a body.

It seems to: "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

If He were an unembodied spirit, this would be the case, but it is not.

unembodied...meaning He once had a body, but now does not? Where is that idea even found in Scripture? That possibility isn't even hinted at. A spirit is something that is immaterial.

Obviously, each and every one of us are spirits.

No, we're not. We HAVE spirits. However, we also have a body and a soul: "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thess. 5:23

If we weren't, we would not be able to worship God "in spirit and in truth." We communicate with Him spirit to Spirit.

We can worship God "in Spirit" because the Spirit indwells us and empowers us (1 Cor. 3:16). We don't have to be actual spirits (which by definition have no bodies)to worship "in Spirit". If you'd like to provide a Scriptural definition or example of a spirit which has/had a body, please do.

What is "spirit" to you anyway? What does the word mean, in your opinion? I ask because I have some thoughts on this myself and would like to share them after I hear yours.

In the context of John 4:24, I believe it means that God is immaterial, and therefore, as He is also omnipresent, can exist in more than one place at once. The woman at the well was questioning what the correct place of worship was, whether in Jerusalem or on a mountain in Samaria, and then Jesus replies that one day it will be neither, it doesn't really matter, because God is Spirit. To me, this could only be true is God was incorporeal and able to be with His people wherever they worshipped.

You have pointed out that the scriptures refer to the "invisible God." But the Greek word (sorry, it escapes me at the moment) is more correctly translated to mean "unseen" as opposed to "unable to be seen." And of course we all know that, for the most part, God is definitely unseen. But this does not mean that He has no physical form.

Ok, I can buy that explanation in theory.

Look what happened when the Apostles first saw the risen Christ on Easter morning. They were afraid because they thought that they had seen a spirit. This clearly shows that even a being that is an unemboded spirit has a form and can be seen. The Apostles knew that Christ's spirit had left His body when He died. That spirit is what they assumed they were seeing.

The fact that something is made visible does not necesarily mean it is a physical thing. People see visions, mirages, etc. Also, light is not physical, yet obviously we can see that. And the point is, Christ clarified that He wasn't a spirit...not just because they could see Him, but because He had a physical body, which precluded His being a spirit as they had thought.

As far as where in the New Testament we are told that the Father has a body, I think that the most obvious place is where we are told that Jesus is "the express image of [the Father's] person." The Son looks like the Father. How much more clearly could it possibly be stated?

The very fact that the Father's person needed to be embodied in the image of Christ for us to see Him indicates that the Father does not have a physical form. Christ is the physical embodiment of the whole Godhead, "in Him (Christ) dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Col. 2:9

Of course we don't believe that the Father has wings. But we do believe He has a face, feet, hands, and a back.

Why the distinction? The references to God's wings are no different than the references to His other body parts. They are all anthropomorphic images desgined to make God's being easier for the human mind to comprehend on our level, they are not literal indications of body parts.

In the Old Testament, we are told that the Lord spoke to Moses "face to face, as a man speaketh unto a friend." Without coming right out and saying, "God the Father is a physical being who has a human appearance," the scriptures could not possibly have provided us with much more evidence than it has that this is the case. I don't think the Latter-day Saints are the ones who are misinterpreting the scriptures in this case. Obviously there is much in the Bible that is figurative, but why assume that something that makes logical sense when interpreted literally should be re-interpreted figuratively?

In the Bible, we read:
"Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father." John 6:46
Thus, when the Lord spoke to Moses "face to face", it was clearly not the Father who Moses saw, since no one has seen the Father. I believe that instances where God appeared to people in the Old Testament, such as the "face to face" encounters with Moses, were appearances of the pre-Incarnate Christ. They were not, however, God the Father, and therefore cannot be used to assert that the Father has a physical body.

FerventGodSeeker