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

[Brennin]

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

It is most certainly an issue for the LDS, who believe (incredibly) that God possesses a body of flesh and bone. (The idea that God is a primate living on Kolob surpasses the trinity on the scale of absurdity.)

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

No, they do not. The syllogism is a problem for anyone who believes Jesus is ontologically God, which certainly includes trinitarians.

[semlogo]

It is most certainly an issue for the LDS, who believe (incredibly) that God possesses a body of flesh and bone. (The idea that God is a primate living on Kolob surpasses the trinity on the scale of absurdity.)

No, they do not. The syllogism is a problem for anyone who believes Jesus is ontologically God, which certainly includes trinitarians.

This is a problem if we were Bible inerrantists - we're not.

[Brennin]

This is a problem if we were Bible inerrantists - we're not.

Yes, instead you believe in what you claim are ancient, sacred books that were unknown until the 19th century and cannot be tied to any known civilization or extant text. That's an improvement alright!

A Bible, a Bible, I've got a Bible!

[semlogo]

Yes, instead you believe in what you claim are ancient, sacred books that were unknown until the 19th century and cannot be tied to any known civilization or extant text. That's an improvement alright!

A Bible, a Bible, I've got a Bible!

I didn't say it was better or worse. What I'm saying is your point is irrelevant given the fact that we aren't inerrantists.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is most certainly an issue for the LDS, who believe (incredibly) that God possesses a body of flesh and bone. (The idea that God is a primate living on Kolob surpasses the trinity on the scale of absurdity.)

Actually what is an absurdity is your mis-represnetation of what the LDS believe. I suggest that you keep your fingers tied when you are so blatantly ignorant of our beliefs.

No, they do not. The syllogism is a problem for anyone who believes Jesus is ontologically God, which certainly includes trinitarians.

Bummer I guess they missed the memo. I am telling you that your criticism is quite shallow and will convert no one to your brand of theology or lack there of.

I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, instead you believe in what you claim are ancient, sacred books that were unknown until the 19th century and cannot be tied to any known civilization or extant text. That's an improvement alright!

A Bible, a Bible, I've got a Bible!

More worthless jabber.

[3DOP]

Hey Vance,

Thank you for the very kind words. Allow me to respond to but one more minor concern.

3DOP, previously

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.

Vance, in reply to 3DOP previously

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.

3DOP Now

Oh Vance. Yes! It HAS to be nebulous. We are not describing God here. We assuredly have very major disagreements about

what "to be God" means...probably irreconcilable between most LDS and Catholic.

I don't know how much an LDS could theoretically budge about what "to be God" means and still be a fully acceptable LDS. Because of our admitted committment to creeds, we "orthodox" Catholics seem less free in this regard than "orthoprax" Mormons who seem more committed to practice than dogma.

My modest proposal, for what little it may be worth is that both LDS and Catholic can agree that "to be God" (no matter how either camp would describe it) neither implies "a body" nor "not a body".

Regards,

3DOP

[LovemyLord]

Also, modern scholars are agreed that the King James' translation of John 4:24 as "God is a Spirit" is incorrect. The correct rendering of the Greek is "God is spirit." The New Testament contains a number of other brief statements about God which, like John 4:24, were clearly not put forth as absolute definitions, e.g., "God is light" (1 John 1:5), "God is love" (1 John 4:, and "God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29). Obviously, these verses are simply metaphors.

So yes God is spirit, but he also happens to be made of flesh and bone.

Luke 24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.

[LovemyLord]

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

Not really, since the word make here implies creation ex-nihilo, from no material substance, while God's forming man out of the dust of the ground implies being created out of already eisting materials (that is, dust).

[LeSellers]

Not really, since the word make here implies creation ex-nihilo, from no material substance,...

Fruitlessly attempting to deny myself the picking of nits, I believe you have it wrong on this. The word used in this sentence is ???? ?a?s?a?h

1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make

1a) (Qal)

1a1) to do, work, make, produce

1a1a) to do

1a1b) to work

1a1c) to deal (with)

1a1d) to act, act with effect, effect

1a2) to make

1a2a) to make

1a2b) to produce

1a2c) to prepare

1a2d) to make (an offering)

1a2e) to attend to, put in order

1a2f) to observe, celebrate

1a2g) to acquire (property)

1a2h) to appoint, ordain, institute

1a2i) to bring about

1a2j) to use

1a2k) to spend, pass

1b) (Niphal)

1b1) to be done

1b2) to be made

1b3) to be produced

1b4) to be offered

1b5) to be observed

1b6) to be used

1c) (Pual) to be made

2) (Piel) to press, squeeze

Nothing in this definition implies (and it certainly does not require) creatio ex nihilo.

You may be thinking of Gen 1:1, where the verb is

???? ba?ra?'

1) to create, shape, form

1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create

1a1) of heaven and earth

1a2) of individual man

1a3) of new conditions and circumstances

1a4) of transformations

1b) (Niphal) to be created

1b1) of heaven and earth

1b2) of birth

1b3) of something new

1b4) of miracles

1c) (Piel)

1c1) to cut down

1c2) to cut out

2) to be fat

2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

If you examine this definition carefully, you will still see that creatio ex nihilo is not required. It's a manmade construct, designed in the iv to appease the Hellenists among the Jews and later to appease yet more Hellenists, this time among the Saints.

while God's forming man out of the dust of the ground implies being created out of already eisting materials (that is, dust).

This time, the verb is ??? ya?tsar:

1) to form, fashion, frame

1a) (Qal) to form, fashion

1a1) of human activity

1a2) of divine activity

1a2a) of creation

1a2a1) of original creation

1a2a2) of individuals at conception

1a2a3) of Israel as a people

1a2b) to frame, pre-ordain, plan (figuratively of divine) purpose of a situation)

1b) (Niphal) to be formed, be created

1c) (Pual) to be predetermined, be pre-ordained

1d) (Hophal) to be formed

This is only one of the verbs listed that could, possibly, imply creatio ex-nihil. But, as you pointed out, it cannot because the explicit reference is to forming of dust, that pre-existing material.

Lehi

[Vance]

My modest proposal, for what little it may be worth is that both LDS and Catholic can agree that "to be God" (no matter how either camp would describe it) neither implies "a body" nor "not a body".

Regards,

3DOP

I can agree with that.

[Vance]

Rob...I would especially like to hear your take on this one.

Me too.

I thought he would be back by now. I guess he hasn't returned from his trip yet.

[CV75]

how do you define "Spirit"?

God is a Spirit with a capital "S", Jesus is the Spirit of truth with a capital "S" (D&C 93:9, 11, 26), the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit with a capital "S" (D&C 130:22); man is spirit with a small "s" (D&C 93:33); the devil is a spirit with a small "s" (D&C 93:25).

Man (spirit, small "s") "was also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth (D&C 93:23)," as was the devil (spirit, small "s", D&C 93:25).

From this I take it that "Spirit" and "spirit" are anything that is not element, and they can be separated or inseparably connected with element (D&C 93:33). Where the elements are the tabernacle of God, His glory is His intelligence, light and truth (D&C 93:35, 36)--not the eternal elements themselves--indicating that His Spirit is intelligence, light and truth.

So in summary, look in the mirror and you are looking at spirit, though you may not recognize or discern it. Man is spirit, along with a temporarily connected body comprised of element. God is Spirit, along with an inseparably connected body of element. His Spirit is a fullness of intelligence, light and truth. Man's spirit, and the devil's spirit, are also intelligence, light and truth but not a fullness, for as long as they exist, and they exist so long as they act so as to exist (D&C 93:30).

[Vance]

With this small exception.

From this I take it that "Spirit" and "spirit" are anythingsomething that is not element,

There may be somethings that aren't element that are also not spirit. We just don't know.

[CV75]

A kindred spirit!

I appreciate your point about what we don

[Vance]

<SNIP>

Fair enough.

As mfbukowski might say, if we don't know about it, it doesn't exist, as far as we are concerned.

[Storm Rider]

My modest proposal, for what little it may be worth is that both LDS and Catholic can agree that "to be God" (no matter how either camp would describe it) neither implies "a body" nor "not a body".

Regards,

3DOP

3DOP, I would join with the previous answers and agree with this proposal. My eyes tend to roll back in my head to read conflicts between the belief in the Trinity and the Godhead. Catholics believe in the same three persons of the Godhead that LDS do. I also believe that Catholics and LDS are on the same path in returning to God. I firmly believe that when I meet God and Jesus Christ I will be able to kiss the feet that have been bathed with the tears of Catholics, EO, Anglican, Baptist, LDS, and a host coming from other religions. God has made a way for all to come unto him through his Son. May all the righteous be able to stand together in the works of God to fight against the evil one.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa and Vance,

Papa wrote: "Rob...I would especially like to hear your take on this one." And Vance wrote: "Me too. I thought he would be back by now. I guess he hasn't returned from his trip yet."

I'm sorry I've been absent from this forum for so long. When I returned from England my back was a wreck and I was laid up for days. In addition, due to an unforeseen turn of events I find myself in effect with a second job that is nearly full-time in scope.

I hope to post a response to the question soon. I'd like to do so today but more realistically it may be another couple of days.

Thanks for your patience.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa and Vance,

Papa wrote: "Rob...I would especially like to hear your take on this one." And Vance wrote: "Me too. I thought he would be back by now. I guess he hasn't returned from his trip yet."

I'm sorry I've been absent from this forum for so long. When I returned from England my back was a wreck and I was laid up for days. In addition, due to an unforeseen turn of events I find myself in effect with a second job that is nearly full-time in scope.

I hope to post a response to the question soon. I'd like to do so today but more realistically it may be another couple of days.

Thanks for your patience.

Well I hope all things work out for you.

[Vance]

When I returned from England my back was a wreck and I was laid up for days.

OUCH!!!

I am very sorry to hear that. When your back is in pain there is very little that you can do without causing more pain. I hope you get feeling better SOON!

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You gave the following quotation:

The late Raymond Brown [Catholic Theologian] who was considered by many in the world to be the Worlds leading scholar/Theologian on the Gospel of John stated regarding John 4:24 -" This is not an essential definition of GOD, but of GOD'S dealing with men; it means that GOD is spirit toward men because he gives the spirit [xivv 16] which begets them anew". There are in fact two other descriptions in Johns writtings : "GOD is light [1 JN 1:5], GOD is Love [ JN 4:8], thou no one has argued that GOD is a light or a species of Love . In short one must worship the Father "Through the Spirit" which he has given to the Church [John 14: 16], there is no hint of suggestion that he "himself" is a "spirit". See Anchor Bible, John, 172.

A correction is in order here. Someone -- I don't know who -- has taken the above quote, which is actually the LDS writer Eugene Seaich quoting Brown, and made the whole thing out to be a quotation just from Brown. I don't have Seaich's book, but I found a quotation from it that appears to be correct. The quotation from Seaich reads as follows:

As Raymond Brown -- undoubtedly the world's leading scholarly authority on John's Gospel -- explains, "This is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealings with men, it means that God is spirit toward men because he gives the spirit [xiv. 16] which begets them anew" (Anchor Bible, John, p. 172). There are in fact two other such descriptions in John's writing, "God is light" (1 John 1:5), and "God is love" (1 John 4:8 ), though no one has argued that God is a light, or a species of love! In short, one must worship the Father through the Spirit which he has given to the Church (John 14: 16), there being no hint of [sic] suggestion that he is himself "a spirit."

Eugene Seaich, Ancient Texts and Mormonism, 26, as quoted in Michael W. Hickenbotham, Answering Challenging Mormon Questions, 85.

Notice that Seaich ends his quotation from Brown less than halfway through this paragraph. Here is a quotation directly from Brown's commentary, which I do have:

24. God is Spirit. This is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealings with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit [xiv. 16] which begets them anew. " There are two other such descriptions in John's writings, "God is light" (I John i 5), and "God is love" (I John iv 8 ). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16).

Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (i-xii), Anchor Bible 29 (New York: Doubleday--Anchor Bible, 1966), 172.

Assuming Hickenbotham's quotation from Seaich is correct, it would appear that Seaich repeated a sentence from Brown almost verbatim without acknowledging that it came from Brown, and then added his own comment, "though no one has argued that God is a light, or a species of love." The statement that you had in bold, "there is no hint of suggestion that he 'himself' is a 'spirit,'" appears to be an inexact quotation from Seaich, not from Brown.

John 4:24 can be understood as Brown says and also understood as suggesting indeed that God is a spirit, even if it is not "an essential definition," by which Brown evidently meant a definition that would specify fully and exactly what is essential to God that distinguishes him from everything else. John 4:24 is not such a definition because it would be incomplete as such, not because God is something other than a spirit. This is why it is important to recognize that the quotation you passed on (possibly from someone else) attributes statements to Brown that he did not make.

More later.

[mpschmitt]

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

[cdowis]

Thanks Rob for pointing that out. That's why it is dangerous for us to quote outside sources, unless you can trust them implicitly. Especially with you checking it out for us!

A word to the wise.

[Rob Bowman]

I have been asked to explain why, as an orthodox Christian, I take the statement

[cdowis]

The answer is surprisingly simple. In the Bible, the terms fire and love are not terms that denote or connote beings of a certain kind, whereas the term spirit is such a term. That is, one never (to my knowledge) encounters statements in the Bible (or anywhere else I know) to the effect "I saw a love" or "The fire spoke to me" or the like.

Well, Moses spoke with the Lord in the midst of a burning bush, and with the Lord face to face in the midst of fire, Gen 3:2-4 and Deut 5:4.

Anyway, you do a have a good point, and I have no desire to quibble with you. My response would be that Christ is also spirit, but he has a body of flesh and bones as well. (God is spirit, and Christ is not spirit?)

We were created in the image of God, and Christ manifested that image after the resurrection. It looked just like us, with an immortal body of flesh and bones.

After all, they are "one substance", are they not?