Jump to content

The Church Fathers?


jason e.

Recommended Posts

so many a lds member believe that the fathers/early church still had acess to some parts of the truth before the apostacy. so what are the key ones or did they just have deification?

mahalo

jason e.

Link to comment

Three Degrees of Glory (and Outer Darkness too)

Preaching the Gospel to and Salvation for the Dead

Priesthood

Universal Apostasy and Restoration

Corruption of Scripture/Missing Scripture

Plurality of Gods

Anthropomorphic God

Salvation by Faith Grace and Works

Necessity of Baptism

Pre-existence

Esoteric Rites (the Temple)

etc.

Link to comment

Three Degrees of Glory (and Outer Darkness too)

Preaching the Gospel to and Salvation for the Dead

Priesthood

Universal Apostasy and Restoration

Corruption of Scripture/Missing Scripture

Plurality of Gods

Anthropomorphic God

Salvation by Faith Grace and Works

Necessity of Baptism

Pre-existence

Esoteric Rites (the Temple)

etc.

thats good to know and very interesting, thank you.

do you know of any articles that kind of hit all/many of these subjects?

take care

jason e.

Link to comment

BCSpace,

Three Degrees of Glory (and Outer Darkness too)

Preaching the Gospel to and Salvation for the Dead

Priesthood

Universal Apostasy and Restoration

Corruption of Scripture/Missing Scripture

Plurality of Gods

Anthropomorphic God

Salvation by Faith Grace and Works

Pre-existence

I would disagree, please provide some ECF quotes to back up the idea that the ECF's taught what today's Mormon Church teaches on this topics.

Link to comment

I, for the first time EVER, may have to agree with Johnny. While some quotes can be found to support these positions, other ECF's believed and taught otherwise. I have read all of the ECF in the first 2 1/2 centuries and still working on the rest. I cannot recall any quotes about an anthropomorphic God other than this:

The Clementine Homolies: "And Simon said: 'I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe

that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God.' And Peter said: 'I am really quite

certain, Simon, that this is the case. . . . It is the shape of the just God.'" (Clementine Homilies 16.19,

in ANF, 8:316)

3 degrees-yes by Papias, Irenaeus, and believe there was another who quoted Papias

Salvation for the dead- yes, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Shepard of Hermas, Ambrose, Peter the venerable, etc..

Priesthood-yes, while not always exclusive (Origin, the other has slipped my mind) it was usually taught only within the Church could one find this true power.

Universal apostasy/restoration- The early ECFs seemed to have believed this, but this idea was done away with quickly.

Corruption of Scripture- very much so

Plurality of Gods-yes, Origin, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, NOvation, Lactantius, etc..

Salvation by Faith and works- yes, across the board

Necessity of Baptism-yes across the board

Pre-existence-yes, Origin, Clementine Recognitions,Justin Martyr, Pistis Sophia

Link to comment
I, for the first time EVER, may have to agree with Johnny.

Your commented list seems to indicate otherwise. For the most part, the items on my list dovetail quite nicely with current LDS doctrine. A couple don't show all the details, but nevertheless are not extant in modern nonLDS Christianity and that proves traditional Christianity is not orignal Christianity as well as showing that the farther back you go, the more LDS the Church looks.

While some quotes can be found to support these positions, other ECF's believed and taught otherwise. I have read all of the ECF in the first 2 1/2 centuries and still working on the rest. I cannot recall any quotes about an anthropomorphic God other than this:

The Clementine Homolies: "And Simon said: 'I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe

that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God.' And Peter said: 'I am really quite

certain, Simon, that this is the case. . . . It is the shape of the just God.'" (Clementine Homilies 16.19,

in ANF, 8:316)

While you're in Homilies, look at.....

For he moulded man in His own shape as in the grandest seal, in order that he may be the ruler and lord of all, and that all may be subject to him." Clementine Homilies 7:17, in ANF 8:114

Besides actual Bible verses (such as Ezekiel 1 and Acts 7) there are....

The Father appeared to Mary and was in the form of a man. The Gospel of Bartholomew, in ANT 172

A rabbinical report on Christian sects that "picture God Himself as a man or posit a principal angel, with the shape of a man, who aids God in the governance of the world." Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, 1977, 149

Clement of Alexandria notes that earlier belief (that he himself rejected) was that God has a material body in human form. Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 50

Origen, denied such a belief existed (Origen, Against Celsus, 7:27, in ANF 4:621) but interestingly reported that Melito, the bishop of Sardis, was one of the Christians who believed God has a material body in human form. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses", Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990), 111-112

Regarding Melito, he wrote many theological works, including one called On The Corporeality of God and was "considered a prophet by many of us" Gennedius, in NPNF Series 2, 3:368-369

Origen presents an interesting face on the matter. In the above, he alternately says such a teaching never existed, but he also refers to the authoritative Melito who has a treatise on the subject, and also grudingly (see Reluctant above) 'gives in' that the question of a corporeal God has not been settled Origen, De Principiis Preface 9, in ANF 4:241

Did Origen reject anthropomorphism because the scriptures or Christian tradition rejected it? No, he rejected it because the philosophers (read: universal apostasy) despised it. Origen, Homilies on Genesis 3:1

The 5th century Augustine, a pagan at first, rejected the Christianity of his mother because of the belief of an anthropomorphic God. Augustine, Confessions 5:10, in NPNF Series 1, 1:86

Etc. etc.

Link to comment
I would disagree, please provide some ECF quotes to back up the idea that the ECF's taught what today's Mormon Church teaches on this topics.

There's quite a bit actually. Two examples:

The Three Degrees of salvation

Our understanding of the passage [1 Corinthians 15:40-42] indeed is, that the Apostle, wishing to describe the great difference among those who rise in glory, i.e., of the saints, barrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, "One glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another glory of the stars." Origen, De Principiis 2:10:2, in ANF 4:294

Origen says that the highest degree is connected with the Father, the second with the Son:

"And some are connected with the Father, being part of Him, and next to these, those whom our argument now brings into clearer light, those who have come to the Saviour and take their stand entirely with him. And third are those of whom we spoke, who reckon the sun and the moon and the stars to be gods, and take their stand by them. And in the fourth and last place those who submit to soulless and dead idols." Origen, Commentary on John 2:3, in ANF 10:324-325

"And having said this, he ascends again to the heaven, saying, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon." For as in earthly bodies there is a difference, so also in the heavenly; and that difference no ordinary one, but reaching even to the uttermost: there being not only a difference betwen the sun and moon, and stars, but also between stars and stars. For what though they be all in the heaven? yet some have a larger, others a less share of glory. What do we learn from hence? That although they be all in God's kingdom, all shall not enjoy the same reward; and though all sinners be in hell, all shall not endure the same punishment." John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 41:4, in NPNF Series 1, 12:251

Clement of Alexandria speaks of three kinds of actions, the first of which is right or perfect action, which is characteristic of the perfect man and Gnostic alone, and raises him to the height of glory. The second is...medium action, which are done by less perfect believers, and attain a lower grade of glory. Lastly are sinful actions, which are done by those who fall away from salvation. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:14, in ANF 2:506

The preaching of the Gospel to the dead.....

It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also, and [declaring] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:27:2

And it has been shown also, in the second book of the Stromata, that the Apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades...For it was suitable to the divine administration, that those possessed of greater worth in righteousness, and whose life had been pre-eminent, on repenting of their transgressions, though found in another place, yet being confessedly of the number of the people of God Almighty, should be saved, each one according to his individual knowledge...If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was but to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there...Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:6

When He became a soul, without the covering of the body, He dwelt among those souls which were without bodily covering, converting such of them as were willing to Himself, or those whom He saw, for reasons known to Him alone, to be better adapted to such a course. Origen, Against Celsus, 2:43

These Apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of preaching. Accordingly they descended with them into the water and again ascended. The Pastor of Hermas, Sim. 9:16

Both this last and the Clement quote show a belief amazingly similar to LDS belief in that Jesus ordained others to preach the gospel to the dead as per D&C 138:30-34

"We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled." [Justin quotes some passages which the Jews evidently removed from Esdras and Jeremiah.] And again, from the sayings of some of Jeremiah these have been cut out: "The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation." Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 71-72

Etc. etc.

Vicarious baptism for the dead is there too.

Link to comment

so many a lds member believe that the fathers/early church still had acess to some parts of the truth before the apostacy. so what are the key ones or did they just have deification?

mahalo

jason e.

Doesn't that one include having everything God is and/or has?

What do you mean by "deification"?

Link to comment

BCSpace,

For he moulded man in His own shape as in the grandest seal, in order that he may be the ruler and lord of all, and that all may be subject to him." Clementine Homilies 7:17, in ANF 8:114

Men are molded in the shape of the Son of God.

The Father appeared to Mary and was in the form of a man. The Gospel of Bartholomew, in ANT 172

An angel of the LORD is the visual form under which God can appear, just like the Holy Ghost took the form of the dove. Both the Father and the Holy Ghost are spirit only.

A rabbinical report on Christian sects that "picture God Himself as a man or posit a principal angel, with the shape of a man, who aids God in the governance of the world." Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, 1977, 149

Sounds like a picture or representation. Moses saw no form.

Clement of Alexandria notes that earlier belief (that he himself rejected) was that God has a material body in human form. Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 50

Sounds like the early Christian Father Clement of Alexandria rejected that God has a material body.

Origen, denied such a belief existed (Origen, Against Celsus, 7:27, in ANF 4:621) but interestingly reported that Melito, the bishop of Sardis, was one of the Christians who believed God has a material body in human form. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses", Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990), 111-112

Sounds like the early Christian Father Origen rejected that God has a material body.

Regarding Melito, he wrote many theological works, including one called On The Corporeality of God and was "considered a prophet by many of us" Gennedius, in NPNF Series 2, 3:368-369

I don't believe Clement of Alexandria and Origen would consider him a prophet if they both rejected The Corporeality of God.

Origen presents an interesting face on the matter. In the above, he alternately says such a teaching never existed, but he also refers to the authoritative Melito who has a treatise on the subject, and also grudingly (see Reluctant above) 'gives in' that the question of a corporeal God has not been settled Origen, De Principiis Preface 9, in ANF 4:241

Origen seems to teach other wise ... he says:

Origen (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225])

"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word, the Wisdom, was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however, that there was never a time when he did not exist, is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words â??whenâ?? and â??neverâ?? are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity".

Did Origen reject anthropomorphism because the scriptures or Christian tradition rejected it? No, he rejected it because the philosophers (read: universal apostasy) despised it. Origen, Homilies on Genesis 3:1

Christian tradition rejected before Origen, Irenaeus wrote,

Irenaeus of Lyons

"Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligent, all reason . . . all light, all fountain of every good, and this is the manner in which the religious and the pious are accustomed to speak of God" (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).

The 5th century Augustine, a pagan at first, rejected the Christianity of his mother because of the belief of an anthropomorphic God. Augustine, Confessions 5:10, in NPNF Series 1, 1:86

Later Augustine wrote,

Augustine

"In created and changeable things what is not said according to substance can only be said according to accident. . . . In God, however, certainly there is nothing that is said according to accident, because in him there is nothing that is changeable, but neither is everything that is said of him according to substance" (The Trinity 5:5:6 [A.D. 408]).

Etc. etc.

In 189 AD Clement of Alexandria wrote,

"Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligent, all reason . . . all light, all fountain of every good, and this is the manner in which the religious and the pious are accustomed to speak of God" (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).

"The first substance is everything which subsists by itself, as a stone is called a substance. The second is a substance capable of increase, as a plant grows and decays. The third is animated and sentient substance, as animal, horse. The fourth is animate, sentient, rational substance, as man. Wherefore each one of us is made as consisting of all, having an immaterial soul and a mind, which is the image of God" (Fragment from On Providence [A.D. 200]).

"Being is in God. God is divine being, eternal and without beginning, incorporeal and illimitable, and the cause of what exists. Being is that which wholly subsists. Nature is the truth of things, or the inner reality of them. According to others, it is the production of what has come to existence; and according to others, again, it is the providence of God, causing the being, and the manner of being, in the things which are produced" (ibid.).

"What is God? â??God,â?? as the Lord says, â??is a spirit.â?? Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal, and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length, and depth. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself" (ibid.).

"No one can rightly express him wholly. For on account of his greatness he is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of him. For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form" (Miscellanies 5:12 [A.D. 208]).

Link to comment

BCSpace,

There's quite a bit actually. Two examples:

Please provide some more example because up to now none of the quotes you have provided support the teachings of the Mormon Church.

Our understanding of the passage [1 Corinthians 15:40-42] indeed is, that the Apostle, wishing to describe the great difference among those who rise in glory, i.e., of the saints, barrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, "One glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another glory of the stars." Origen, De Principiis 2:10:2, in ANF 4:294

Origen, John Chrysostom, and Clement of Alexandria are speaking of different glories, he is NOT speaking of different kingdoms like the Mormon Church teaches.

The preaching of the Gospel to the dead.....

Preaching the Gospel to the dead is NOT the same as the Mormon Church teaching of baptism for the dead.

Vicarious baptism for the dead is there too.

Where ... please provide some quotes ... because up to now NONE of the quotes you have provided support the teachings of the Mormon Church.

Link to comment
For he moulded man in His own shape as in the grandest seal, in order that he may be the ruler and lord of all, and that all may be subject to him." Clementine Homilies 7:17, in ANF 8:114
Men are molded in the shape of the Son of God.

And the Son is in the literal image of the Father (Hebrews 1). LDS doctrine all the way.

The Father appeared to Mary and was in the form of a man. The Gospel of Bartholomew, in ANT 172
An angel of the LORD is the visual form under which God can appear,

But if men are molded in his own shape, what is His usual form? The Bible already testifies that Both the Father and Son have physical bodies.

Both the Father and the Holy Ghost are spirit only.

ContraBiblical, Jesus still has his resurrected body and the Father also by John 5:19.

A rabbinical report on Christian sects that "picture God Himself as a man or posit a principal angel, with the shape of a man, who aids God in the governance of the world." Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, 1977, 149
Sounds like a picture or representation. Moses saw no form.

If Ezekiel did, Moses did too (Ezekiel 1:26-28).

Regarding Melito, he wrote many theological works, including one called On The Corporeality of God and was "considered a prophet by many of us" Gennedius, in NPNF Series 2, 3:368-369
I don't believe Clement of Alexandria and Origen would consider him a prophet if they both rejected The Corporeality of God.

Melito was an actual Bishop (of Sardis). Jerome and Tertullian noted his greatness. After your rejection, I find it interesting that he has an Ecclesiastical Feast named after him (April 1). Hmmmmmmm.........

Sounds like the early Christian Father Clement of Alexandria rejected that God has a material body.

Sounds like the early Christian Father Origen rejected that God has a material body.

You missed the point that they both testified that the corporeal God doctrine is or had been extant in the Church. Ditto for the rest of that post.

There's quite a bit actually. Two examples:
Please provide some more example because up to now none of the quotes you have provided support the teachings of the Mormon Church.

A strawman on your part. So far, every quote I've provided supports the fact that LDS doctrine was extant in the early Chruch.

Our understanding of the passage [1 Corinthians 15:40-42] indeed is, that the Apostle, wishing to describe the great difference among those who rise in glory, i.e., of the saints, barrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, "One glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another glory of the stars." Origen, De Principiis 2:10:2, in ANF 4:294
Origen, John Chrysostom, and Clement of Alexandria are speaking of different glories, he is NOT speaking of different kingdoms like the Mormon Church teaches.

Non sequitur syntax. We do indeed refer to each as a degree of glory or a kingdom. By your logic, I should reject the trinity because the word 'trinity' is not found in the Bible.

The preaching of the Gospel to the dead.....
Preaching the Gospel to the dead is NOT the same as the Mormon Church teaching of baptism for the dead.

Another strawman on your part. They are the same as the LDS doctrine of the preaching the gospel to the dead. I did not say they were about baptism for the dead though one actually references it.

Vicarious baptism for the dead is there too.
Where ... please provide some quotes ... because up to now NONE of the quotes you have provided support the teachings of the Mormon Church.

See? Why did you switch from preaching the gospel to the dead to baptism for the dead above when you had this? More evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.

The aforementioned quote in my previous post has a direct reference to it.....

These Apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of preaching. Accordingly they descended with them into the water and again ascended. The Pastor of Hermas, Sim. 9:16

There are others, but we'll wait and see if you can actually gainsay what I have already posted instead of dodging the issue.

Link to comment

BCSpace,

And the Son is in the literal image of the Father (Hebrews 1). LDS doctrine all the way.

"the Word" or "the Logos" is the image of the Father. "The Logos" is not corporeal.

But if men are molded in his own shape, what is His usual form? The Bible already testifies that Both the Father and Son have physical bodies.

Which verse testifies that the Father has a physical body?

Neither the Bible nor the Early Church testify to a Heavenly Father with a body of flesh and bones.

ContraBiblical, Jesus still has his resurrected body and the Father also by John 5:19.

Jesus has a resurrected body. John 5:19 is not a reference to a physical body.

If Ezekiel did, Moses did too (Ezekiel 1:26-28).

Ezekiel had a vision, items in a vision are not the actual form of the subject, for example the Apostle John had a vision and the Son was a Lamb.

Moses saw the glory of God, Moses did not see a corporeal God.

Melito was an actual Bishop (of Sardis). Jerome and Tertullian noted his greatness. After your rejection, I find it interesting that he has an Ecclesiastical Feast named after him (April 1). Hmmmmmmm.........

Which fragment of Melito are you referring too? The Syriac fragments prove that the author held the opposite doctrine of what you are stating. Jerome said the idea that God has a human form was so absolutely senseless, that it showed no vitality.

You missed the point that they both testified that the corporeal God doctrine is or had been extant in the Church. Ditto for the rest of that post.

How could it be if both Clement of Alexandria clearly rejected the idea of a corpreal God?

A strawman on your part. So far, every quote I've provided supports the fact that LDS doctrine was extant in the early Chruch.

Not one of your quotes support the Mormon doctrine that the Father has a body of flesh and bones.

Non sequitur syntax. We do indeed refer to each as a degree of glory or a kingdom. By your logic, I should reject the trinity because the word 'trinity' is not found in the Bible

Please logic connect using the bible a degree of glory and seperate kingdom's after the Last Judgment like the Mormon Church teaches.

Another strawman on your part. They are the same as the LDS doctrine of the preaching the gospel to the dead. I did not say they were about baptism for the dead though one actually references it.

I have no problem with preaching the gospel to the dead.

The aforementioned quote in my previous post has a direct reference to it.....

These Apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of preaching. Accordingly they descended with them into the water and again ascended. The Pastor of Hermas, Sim. 9:16

Where is the reference that a person on the earth is doing a proxy baptism like the Mormon Church teaches.

Hermas is describing the baptism of desire.

There are others, but we'll wait and see if you can actually gainsay what I have already posted instead of dodging the issue.

I hope you have others because up to now you have no ECF quotes that support the Mormon doctrines you have indicated.

Link to comment

livy111us,

I, for the first time EVER, may have to agree with Johnny. While some quotes can be found to support these positions, other ECF's believed and taught otherwise. I have read all of the ECF in the first 2 1/2 centuries and still working on the rest. I cannot recall any quotes about an anthropomorphic God other than this: The Clementine Homolies: "And Simon said: 'I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God.' And Peter said: 'I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case. . . . It is the shape of the just God.'" (Clementine Homilies 16.19, in ANF, 8:316)

The Mormon assertion that God the Father has a physical Body is not ever mentioned in scripture, nor is mentioned in any of the early Christian teachings. It contradicts what all the Church Fathers and early Christians taught about God the Father. This Mormon teaching was refuted by a great number of the early Christians (Church Fathers), below a few examples,

Tatian the Syrian (Address to the Greeks 4 [A.D. 170])

"Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and is himself the beginning of all things. God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the Maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible, being himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things"

Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).

"Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligent, all reason . . . all light, all fountain of every good, and this is the manner in which the religious and the pious are accustomed to speak of God"

Clement of Alexandria (Fragment from On Providence [A.D. 200])

"The first substance is everything which subsists by itself, as a stone is called a substance. The second is a substance capable of increase, as a plant grows and decays. The third is animated and sentient substance, as animal, horse. The fourth is animate, sentient, rational substance, as man. Wherefore each one of us is made as consisting of all, having an immaterial soul arid a mind, which is the image of God"

Origen (Fundamental Doctrines 1:1:6 [A.D. 225])

"Since our mind is in itself unable to behold God as he is, it knows the Father of the universe from the beauty of his works and from the elegance of his creatures. God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind.

Link to comment

Johnny:

Jesus has a resurrected body. John 5:19 is not a reference to a physical body.

And His (God's) resurrection body is entirely physical. There is no immateriality to the resurrection body of God. I have a brand new podcast up on this subject, not that you're interested in hearing the truth. You have ears, but do not (read, will not as per your own confession in another thread) hear...... :P

Link to comment

e=mc2,

And His (God's) resurrection body is entirely physical. There is no immateriality to the resurrection body of God.

The Son of God has a resurrected glorified body. The early Christians were clear that His Father is a spirit, that is all spirit.

I have a brand new podcast up on this subject, not that you're interested in hearing the truth.

The truth is that is God is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body. This is what the early Christians like Origen and Irenaeus believed. Irenaeus (AD 180) was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Apostle. Irenaeus was not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles.

Why don't you believe them?

Link to comment

Johnny

The Son of God has a resurrected glorified body. The early Christians were clear that His Father is a spirit, that is all spirit.

The Greek soma pneumatikos - "spiritual body," i.e., spirit, is NOT immaterial as Norman Geisler has shown in his article in the Bibliotecha Sacra, 1989, "The Significance of Christ's Physical Resurrection." ALL descriptions of GOD are physical, not immaterial, but immortal. Spirit is NOT the opposite of material. That is pagan Greek philosophical teaching which has crept into Christian teaching and is pagan, not Christian. The early Christians taught that spirit is MATERIAL according to David Paulson's article on this in the Harvard Theological Review. The word spirit in Hebrew is ruach, and is not about an immaterial substance, but is breath, wind, etc. These are not immaterial and opposite of material as you presume.

Christ told Philip that if he has seen Christ, he has seen the Father. Was Philip looking at a Spirit? John 14:9. The Son is an exact reproduction (the Greek word being charakter) of the Father. By looking at Christ, Philip could see what the Father was like exactly, both physically and spiritually, else why would Christ teach such a silly thing to him? He taught it plainly, ho eorakos eme eoraken ton patera literally from the Greek, the one having seen me has seen the Father. The Greek eorekos is about seeing with our PHYSICAL EYES, and hence perceiving the PHYSICAL object, here the Christ, who is also the physical prototype of His Father as he plainly teaches. Do you not believe what Christ taught of the Father?

Link to comment

e=mc2,

The early Christians taught that spirit is MATERIAL according to David Paulson's article on this in the Harvard Theological Review.

The early Christians taught that spirit is not attending upon matter, it is all spirit.

Tatian the Syrian (Address to the Greeks 4 [A.D. 170])

"Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and is himself the beginning of all things. God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the Maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible, being himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things"

Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).

"Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligent, all reason . . . all light, all fountain of every good, and this is the manner in which the religious and the pious are accustomed to speak of God"

Christ told Philip that if he has seen Christ, he has seen the Father. Was Philip looking at a Spirit? John 14:9. The Son is an exact reproduction (the Greek word being charakter) of the Father. By looking at Christ, Philip could see what the Father was like exactly, both physically and spiritually, else why would Christ teach such a silly thing to him?

He saw the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ ...

2Cor.4

[6] For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Do you not believe what Christ taught of the Father?

I believe that the Father dwelt in the Son because the Father is spirit, the Father did the works. DO you believe the Father is in the Son?

John.14

[10] Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

[11] Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Link to comment

John 14:9 Christ said to Philip if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. I asked you if you believe Christ's teaching here and you didn't ansswer but quoted some other non-relevant scripture. What is the meaning of Christ's teaching at John 14:9.

Spirit is NOT the opposite of matter, it is the Hebrew word ruach, meaning breath, wind, etc. that is not immaterial.

Link to comment

e=mc2,

John 14:9 Christ said to Philip if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. I asked you if you believe Christ's teaching here and you didn't ansswer but quoted some other non-relevant scripture. What is the meaning of Christ's teaching at John 14:9.

Christ's teachings is that the Father dwells in the Son.

John.14

[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

[10] Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

[11] Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Spirit is NOT the opposite of matter, it is the Hebrew word ruach, meaning breath, wind, etc. that is not immaterial.

The Father can dwell in the Son because the Father is spirit.

Link to comment

Tatian the Syrian (Address to the Greeks 4 [A.D. 170])

"Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and is himself the beginning of all things. God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the Maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible, being himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things"

Interesting.

I recall quoting Tatian a few months ago to you and you rejecting it because he was banished from the church, and here you are now quoting a "heretic" to support your point.

Interesting.

Link to comment

Smith,

I recall quoting Tatian a few months ago to you and you rejecting it because he was banished from the church, and here you are now quoting a "heretic" to support your point.

While Justin lived Tatian remained orthodox. After the death of Justin he apostatized, became a Gnostic of the Encratite sect. He was expelled from the church for his Encratitic (ascetic) views.

Interesting.

I find it interesting that Irenaeus said that God was "without strucutre ... all spirit" who is consistent with Origen who said, "God is not to be thought of has being either a body or as existing in a body".

Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).

"Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligent, all reason . . . all light, all fountain of every good, and this is the manner in which the religious and the pious are accustomed to speak of God"

Origen (Fundamental Doctrines 1:1:6 [A.D. 225])

"Since our mind is in itself unable to behold God as he is, it knows the Father of the universe from the beauty of his works and from the elegance of his creatures. God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind.

Link to comment

I find it even more interesting that you are willing to go with Irenaeus' misguided views about God than with Jesus Christ's words and teaching to Philip about His Father. Forgive me, it's all I can do to not follow along with you on this, but Jesus beckons, and I follow him.........

Link to comment

e=mc2,

I find it even more interesting that you are willing to go with Irenaeus' misguided views about God than with Jesus Christ's words and teaching to Philip about His Father.

Philip is pictured asking Jesus for a theophany like Exodus 24:9-10; 33:18. In Exodus 33 Moses saw the glory of God, Moses did not see God with a body of flesh and bones.

Jesus answered Phillip by asking do you believe "the Father in me" (John 14:9-11)?

"e=mc2" do you believe that the Father was in the Son?

"e=mc2" do you believe that the Father that dwelleth in the Son did the works?

Joseph Smith did not believe Jesus because he wrote the idea that the Father can dwell in the Son is false (D&C 130:3).

John.14

[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

[10] Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but he Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

[11] Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Link to comment

Yes I do believe what Jesus taught, not your creedal interpretations of what he supposedly meant. He taught Philip if you see Jesus you see what the Father is like. The Father is a man of flesh and bones as Jesus is. If you see the one, you see the other. On your misguided interpretation, even if the Father is literally physically IN Jesus, pray tell, is Jesus a mere spirit, or is that a body Philip is seeing? Either way, what you SEE is God with a body of flesh and bones. Jesus is the same kind of being as His Father. I did yet another podcast on that today and posted it on my blog, not that you are interested in learning. You already appear to me to have your mind completely sold of pagan philosophical explanations of our Savior's plainly worded teachings. Sad really........

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...