"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth".

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

Where does Romans 8:1-14 (the passage quoted by Vance) say anything about the physical nature of God??

Rob these were not cherry picked scriptures...but were listed in complete context to support our beliefs concerning the physical nature of God. It speaks directly to the OP.

[Vance]

If you say so. I honestly don't recall.

I'm not surprised.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/50319-how-traditional-christians-know-that-their-beliefs-are-true/page__view__findpost__p__1208882739

No one claimed that it was "the topic."

And here, http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/50319-how-traditional-christians-know-that-their-beliefs-are-true/page__view__findpost__p__1208882685

you claimed it satisfied a CFR, which you avoided here.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/50319-how-traditional-christians-know-that-their-beliefs-are-true/page__view__findpost__p__1208882409

Which was issued here.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/50319-how-traditional-christians-know-that-their-beliefs-are-true/page__view__findpost__p__1208882054

Against the statement found here.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/50319-how-traditional-christians-know-that-their-beliefs-are-true/page__view__findpost__p__1208881957

That statement being, "God is by nature spirit, not flesh."

Which is the same basic statement you gave in post #2 in this thread.

You also said,

"In the immediate context in John 4, the point being made is that since God is by nature infinite, omnipresent Spirit, true worship of God is not limited to specific places like a temple on a mountain."

So that "No one claimed" is not accurate. Rob specifically claimed that that WAS "the topic".

It is illegitimate to limit what can be learned from this passage to "the topic" of worship.

Well, in this case it is illegitimate to use this passage as a statement on the nature of God as you claimed.

Indeed. I don't see what this has to do with the significance of John 4:24.

And that IS your problem. Paul is clearly describing the worship of God, which is the topic of John 4:24.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Vance,

You wrote:

Indeed. I don't see what this has to do with the significance of John 4:24.

This talks of the specifics of how we worship God.

Vance beat me to it.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

Where does Romans 8:1-14 (the passage quoted by Vance) say anything about the physical nature of God??

It speaks to my question; hoe do you define "Spirit"? His scriptures supported the LDS position as to "if" the comment in John is a "literal" of "metaphorical" meaning.

[3DOP]

I guess some simplistic non-Mormons think that John 4:24 can't be understood from an LDS perspective while simplistic Mormons think that if Jesus has a body, it means that it is essential for God to have a body. Neither position is tenable in my opinion.

1) Since Christ clearly has a body, we know that God can have a body.

2) Since we agree that the Holy Ghost does not have a body, we know that God can be incorporeal.

3) So, if the Father, whose corporeality is disagreed upon, does or does not have a body, it has nothing to do with necessary qualities that make Him God.

4) Jesus was God before He had a body.

Therefore, it seems that we should agree that the attributes which make God God, are spiritual rather than physical. Understanding this, John 4:24 would be compatible with LDS OR non-LDS teachings about the corporeality of God the Father.

[Vance]

Therefore, it seems that we should agree that the attributes which make God God, are spiritual rather than physical. Understanding this, John 4:24 would be compatible with LDS OR non-LDS teachings about the corporeality of God the Father.

I would quibble, but only a very small amount.

I would put it this way, "Therefore, it seems that we should agree that, the attributes of true worship of God are spiritual. Understanding this, John 4:24 would be compatible with LDS OR non-LDS teachings about the corporeality of God the Father."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would quibble, but only a very small amount.

I would put it this way, "Therefore, it seems that we should agree that, the attributes of true worship of God are spiritual. Understanding this, John 4:24 would be compatible with LDS OR non-LDS teachings about the corporeality of God the Father."

To some extent you guys are saying the samething. Adding the word "worship" is not necessary though at the same time it might be to some. I think to understand God we need to have a spiritual understanding.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

I am familiar with Christ, and I do regard him as the supreme authority in all matters. Smith, Young, Monson -- not so much

It is alright to say"not at all"

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

First, excuse me, but I take offense at your comment, "I'm not surprised." Let me remind you that between that earlier post on July 20 and today I had some physical issues that caused me some difficulties, drove across the country and back for my father-in-law's funeral, and then had to get ready for international travel (which starts tomorrow). I have had more pressing and important things to remember than your post of that day.

Second, you quoted the following statement to prove that I had claimed that in John 4:24 the incorporeal nature of God was "the topic":

"In the immediate context in John 4, the point being made is that since God is by nature infinite, omnipresent Spirit, true worship of God is not limited to specific places like a temple on a mountain." (bold emphasis yours)

Vance, what I said was that I never claimed that the incorporeal nature of God was "THE topic," that is, the only topic of the passage, or even the main topic. I then explained that the nature of God can be a supporting point in relation to the main topic, which it clearly is. The above sentence keeps that perspective: the main clause of the sentence is "the point being made is that...true worship of God is not limited to specific places," etc. The clause "since God is by nature infinite, omnipresent Spirit" is a subordinate clause and gives a supporting reason for the main point. Hence, your attempt to claim inconsistency on my part fails.

[Rob Bowman]

3DOP,

You wrote:

I guess some simplistic non-Mormons think that John 4:24 can't be understood from an LDS perspective while simplistic Mormons think that if Jesus has a body, it means that it is essential for God to have a body. Neither position is tenable in my opinion.

I hope you don't mind the intrusion, but I'd like to comment, though if I say so myself I do not fall into either of those two categories.

You wrote:

1) Since Christ clearly has a body, we know that God can have a body.

No orthodox theologian, to my knowledge, claims that God cannot have a body. The orthodox view is that God does not have a body, except in the incarnation of God the Son.

2) Since we agree that the Holy Ghost does not have a body, we know that God can be incorporeal.

Quite logical -- and a cogent rebuttal to the insinuation of many LDS teachers, including some revered leaders, that a God without a body is somehow less than a "real" person.

3) So, if the Father, whose corporeality is disagreed upon, does or does not have a body, it has nothing to do with necessary qualities that make Him God.

Well, all things must be put in context. If God the Father wanted to become incarnate, he could do so, and he would still be God. I don't know any orthodox theologian who would disagree with that, either, although some argue (with some plausibility) that there is a special fittingness to the Son being the one who became incarnate. The problem that we orthodox Christians have with the LDS doctrine is not the idea, in the abstract, that the Father is embodied, but the total theological package of which that claim is an essential part. The classic LDS doctrine is that before he was God, the being now known as Heavenly Father was a man like us, and that he progressed in a manner similar to the way we need to progress spiritually, and that he became exalted and attained Godhood by following that path, and we can do the same. That is the overall picture in which the LDS doctrine that God is an immortal Man with a body of flesh and bones is situated, and it is that overall picture that we roundly reject.

4) Jesus was God before He had a body.

Correct. Jesus was God who became man for our salvation. In LDS doctrine, the Father was a man who became a God. These are two very different doctrines.

Therefore, it seems that we should agree that the attributes which make God God, are spiritual rather than physical. Understanding this, John 4:24 would be compatible with LDS OR non-LDS teachings about the corporeality of God the Father.

You've jumped from theological reasoning (some of which is very good) to an exegetical conclusion about John 4:24. That is the wrong direction, regardless of whose theology is correct.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

Fair enough. As to Smith, Young, Monson, et. al., being authorities in matters of faith and conduct, I would say, Not at all.

It is alright to say"not at all"

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

Fair enough. As to Smith, Young, Monson, et. al., being authorities in matters of faith and conduct, I would say, Not at all.

We are OK with that...I don't listen to Dr. Charles Standley.

[cdowis]

Zakuska,

The translation "God is spirit" is just as problematic for the LDS doctrine as the older "God is a spirit." I notice that Joseph Smith felt it necessary to rewrite the statement completely ("For unto such hath God promised his Spirit," John 4:26 JST).

And Gen 1 [26] ("And God said, Let us make man in our image") poses a problem for historic Christians.

We can quibble over whose interpretation of the Biblical text is most refined and correct, pulling out the most verses which support our position, and checking out the Greek.

But I guess it really comes down to whether we want to trust theologians and scholars, or a living prophet to tell us what is correct. And whether the Bible is inerrant, or a prophet made corrections to the Biblical text.

[coolrok7]

This is often a paradoxical argument. Is God a Spirit or does he have a body of "Flesh and Bone"

[3DOP]

3DOP,

You wrote:

I hope you don't mind the intrusion, but I'd like to comment, though if I say so myself I do not fall into either of those two categories.

You wrote:

No orthodox theologian, to my knowledge, claims that God cannot have a body. The orthodox view is that God does not have a body, except in the incarnation of God the Son.

Quite logical -- and a cogent rebuttal to the insinuation of many LDS teachers, including some revered leaders, that a God without a body is somehow less than a "real" person.

Well, all things must be put in context. If God the Father wanted to become incarnate, he could do so, and he would still be God. I don't know any orthodox theologian who would disagree with that, either, although some argue (with some plausibility) that there is a special fittingness to the Son being the one who became incarnate. The problem that we orthodox Christians have with the LDS doctrine is not the idea, in the abstract, that the Father is embodied, but the total theological package of which that claim is an essential part. The classic LDS doctrine is that before he was God, the being now known as Heavenly Father was a man like us, and that he progressed in a manner similar to the way we need to progress spiritually, and that he became exalted and attained Godhood by following that path, and we can do the same. That is the overall picture in which the LDS doctrine that God is an immortal Man with a body of flesh and bones is situated, and it is that overall picture that we roundly reject.

Correct. Jesus was God who became man for our salvation. In LDS doctrine, the Father was a man who became a God. These are two very different doctrines.

You've jumped from theological reasoning (some of which is very good) to an exegetical conclusion about John 4:24. That is the wrong direction, regardless of whose theology is correct.

Hey Rob,

Thanks for jumping in. I did not want to fit every single commentator into one of two unflattering categories. I am thankful for the utility of the word "some", from which I agree you are excluded.

For sake of argument, I sometimes grant all kinds of things that I would fight for if it became necessary. The original post seemed to propose that if Jesus was God then it means that God has a body. Yes. I agree. But it proves nothing. No one is saying that the Father CANNOT have a body. We are saying that He DOES NOT have a body, and that having a body is not essential to the deity of any members of the Blessed Trinity. I further note why Mormons must necessarily agree with this, unless they deny the deity of the Holy Ghost, who even in their version of the Trinity, is without a body, as the Son was prior to 2,000 years ago.

As for my willingness to grant that there is an LDS way of interpreting John 4:24, it is only if they are willing to concede that corporeality is incidental to deity. I probably did not make that clear.

Rory

[Glenn101]

Hey Rob,

Thanks for jumping in. I did not want to fit every single commentator into one of two unflattering categories. I am thankful for the utility of the word "some", from which I agree you are excluded.

For sake of argument, I sometimes grant all kinds of things that I would fight for if it became necessary. The original post seemed to propose that if Jesus was God then it means that God has a body. Yes. I agree. But it proves nothing. No one is saying that the Father CANNOT have a body. We are saying that He DOES NOT have a body, and that having a body is not essential to the deity of any members of the Blessed Trinity. I further note why Mormons must necessarily agree with this, unless they deny the deity of the Holy Ghost, who even in their version of the Trinity, is without a body, as the Son was prior to 2,000 years ago.

As for my willingness to grant that there is an LDS way of interpreting John 4:24, it is only if they are willing to concede that corporeality is incidental to deity. I probably did not make that clear.

Rory

3DOP

We can prove anything and nothing by the scriptures. While you can say that you believe that God does not have a body based upon the reading of the proof text by the OP, this is not saying that God does not have a body. There is no scriptural basis for an assertion that God (the Father) does not need a body to be God the Father nor that He does need a body to be God the Father. That is a standoff, in my opinion.

Scripturally, there is more evidence that God the Father does have a body than that He does not have a body. I have not read any of the previous posts, so I do not know just what has been already presented. So I may be redundant with all of my references adducing evidence that God the Father does have a body.

Probably Hebrews 1:3 where Paul notes that Jesus Christ was in the express image of the person of God the Father is the most explicit "proof text" that we LDS use. This relates directly to the scripture where Jesus tells us that if you have seen Him (Jesus) you have seen the Father (John 14:9). Taken alone the John verse can be taken as a proof text for the Trinity doctrine, but when coupled with Paul's revelation, it seems to be saying something else, i.e. that Jesus looks just like God.

And the famous or infamous quotation in Genesis about God making us in His image (1:27 God created man in his own image) tells us that we look somewhat like God, but we are not in God's express image and do not look just like Him.

There are many more but I will leave it at that. I feel that the LDS position is much stronger from the weight of the evidence from the Bible alone. Of course, I, for some reason think you will disagree with me.

Glenn

[3DOP]

3DOP

We can prove anything and nothing by the scriptures. While you can say that you believe that God does not have a body based upon the reading of the proof text by the OP, this is not saying that God does not have a body. There is no scriptural basis for an assertion that God (the Father) does not need a body to be God the Father nor that He does need a body to be God the Father. That is a standoff, in my opinion.

Scripturally, there is more evidence that God the Father does have a body than that He does not have a body. I have not read any of the previous posts, so I do not know just what has been already presented. So I may be redundant with all of my references adducing evidence that God the Father does have a body.

Probably Hebrews 1:3 where Paul notes that Jesus Christ was in the express image of the person of God the Father is the most explicit "proof text" that we LDS use. This relates directly to the scripture where Jesus tells us that if you have seen Him (Jesus) you have seen the Father (John 14:9). Taken alone the John verse can be taken as a proof text for the Trinity doctrine, but when coupled with Paul's revelation, it seems to be saying something else, i.e. that Jesus looks just like God.

And the famous or infamous quotation in Genesis about God making us in His image (1:27 God created man in his own image) tells us that we look somewhat like God, but we are not in God's express image and do not look just like Him.

There are many more but I will leave it at that. I feel that the LDS position is much stronger from the weight of the evidence from the Bible alone. Of course, I, for some reason think you will disagree with me.

Glenn

Glenn, hi.

Thank you for the reply. I agree to some of what you said. I disagree with some. I don't think you have a clear view of the position I took. In my main post, with one minor amendment to which I had little objection, Vance, who is LDS endorsed my argument. Of course Vance doesn't speak for all of you. I try to draw conclusions from our shared beliefs about the deity of Christ before the Incarnation, and the deity of the Holy Ghost without an Incarnation.

It is impossible to draw mutually agreeable conclusions that are founded on disagreements. Without repeating myself I conclude that God the Father would still be God if had a body. I conclude that God the Father would still be God if He lacked a body. That covers both sides. It is not controversial. Both sides believe that the Holy Ghost needs no body, nor did Christ in order to be God.

You raise a different question as to whether a bodiless God from the LDS perspective can be "Father". I do not have an answer to that. All I am suggesting is that whatever makes the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit God, is spiritual (since at least two of them have been God without a body). Vance objected to my clarification "spiritual, not physical". By spiritual, I mean "attributes disassociated from matter as can be studied by science".

I am not LDS, but I propose that LDS and non-LDS are able without difficulty to fit John 4:24 into their respective belief systems. John 4:24 is not a silver bullet for either camp. As you say, "We can prove anything and nothing from the Scriptures."

Rory

[Glenn101]

Glenn, hi.

------------

I am not LDS, but I propose that LDS and non-LDS are able without difficulty to fit John 4:24 into their respective belief systems. John 4:24 is not a silver bullet for either camp. As you say, "We can prove anything and nothing from the Scriptures."

Rory

3DOP Whether I agree or disagree with you, I always enjoy your input.

Glenn

[Zakuska]

Pa Pa,

Where does Romans 8:1-14 (the passage quoted by Vance) say anything about the physical nature of God??

The better question is... where in John's various similes is Gods incoporeal nature clearly revealed and expounded?

John 4:24 - "God is spirit"

is no more an exposition of God's ontological "spiritual" nature, than the other similies of God revealed in scripture.

1 Jn. 4: 8, 16

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

[coolrok7]

The opening statement of this thread (the question being, How do you define spirit?):

This is often a paradoxical argument. Is God a Spirit or does he have a body of "Flesh and Bone"

[Hannah Rebekah]

Instead of three Persons, there is only one, the three being separate manifestations of the one Person. Otherwise, the same. God is an abstraction.

Congratulations....I believe you just described Modalism....the heresy the Nicene Creed was trying to do away with.

[Vance]

Without repeating myself I conclude that God the Father would still be God if [He] had a body. I conclude that God the Father would still be God if He lacked a body. That covers both sides. It is not controversial. Both sides believe that the Holy Ghost needs no body, nor did Christ in order to be God.

I can agree with that statement. But it is a bit nebulous, in that "to be God" is not defined. That the un-embodied Jesus was divine (as is the un-embodied Holy Ghost) is not in question here.

There are, however, indications that Jesus' completeness (perfection) wasn't attained until the resurrection (Luke 13:32), a completeness (perfection) attributed to the Father in Matt 5:48. This is one of those differences that you mentioned.

Also, after His resurrection, Matt 28:18)And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." This statement, occurring after His resurrection, implies that it was only after the resurrection did Jesus received "all power", although it doesn't specifically say that. But it does beg the question, 'Is the possession of "all power" a requirement "to be God?'. Or can a person be God (divine) without having "all power"?

All I am suggesting is that whatever makes the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit God, is spiritual (since at least two of them have been God without a body).

Ditto the above first two sentences.

Vance objected to my clarification "spiritual, not physical".

It was a minor objection and I based it on the fact that there was nothing in the verse expressing or implying anything "physical".

By spiritual, I mean "attributes disassociated from matter as can be studied by science".

I think that is a great definition.

I am not LDS, but I propose that LDS and non-LDS are able without difficulty to fit John 4:24 into their respective belief systems. John 4:24 is not a silver bullet for either camp. As you say, "We can prove anything and nothing from the Scriptures."

Agreed.

I very much appreciate your comments. They are thoughtful, tolerant and enlightening.

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The better question is... where in John's various similes is Gods incoporeal nature clearly revealed and expounded?

John 4:24 - "God is spirit"

is no more an exposition of God's ontological "spiritual" nature, than the other similies of God revealed in scripture.

1 Jn. 4: 8, 16

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

[Brennin]

Both Mormons and Trinitarians are wrong:

Premise 1: God is spirit (John 4:24)

Premise 2: A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

Conclusion: God does not have flesh and bones, i.e., is incorporeal.

Corollary: Jesus Christ is not (ontologically) God.

Quod erat demonstrandum

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Both Mormons and Trinitarians are wrong:

Premise 1: God is spirit (John 4:24)

Premise 2: A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

Conclusion: God does not have flesh and bones, i.e., is incorporeal.

Corollary: Jesus Christ is not (ontologically) God.

Quod erat demonstrandum

Nice try but it is not an issue what so ever for the LDS. Remember that we are not Trinitarians.

And the Trinitarians have an easy out as well stating that they are 3 distinct people but One God. Not 3 but One.