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

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

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.

Okay, then I won't bother responding to what you acknowledge would be a quibble by arguing the difference between God speaking or appearing in a fiery manifestation and the word "fire" being used to denote a kind of being.

You wrote:

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?

There are several points here to be untangled.

1. Christ is in an important and relevant sense not a spirit--at least, he explicitly denied that he was a spirit, pointing out that a spirit does not have flesh and bones as he had (Luke 24:39). This statement by Christ is obviously relevant to the issue here.

2. One NT text refers to the risen Christ as "a life-giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45), but it is evident in the context that Paul is using pneuma here in contrast not to a flesh-and-bone human but in contrast to a psuche-controlled human being (Adam, specifically). That is, here Paul uses pneuma in the sense of a transcendent, supernatural being, not in the sense of an incorporeal being (as Jesus does in Luke 24:39).

3. Christ's divine nature is spirit (the truth probably implicit in 1 Corinthians 15:45), while his resurrected human nature is physical, material, and corporeal. Christ is uniquely one person existing in two natures--the Logos become flesh (John 1:14), the fullness of the Deity dwelling in Christ bodily (Col. 2:9). These two natures united in the one person of Christ explains the NT paradoxical statements about Christ, such as that he was fully tempted and yet was God. No such paradoxical statements about the Father ever appear in Scripture (not even in LDS scripture, to my recollection).

4. Christ is "one substance" with the Father with respect to deity, not humanity.

5. There are a number of problems with interpreting "the image of God" to mean that we look like God. (a) It would mean that the Father's spirit children are not in his image when they are living in heaven before coming to earth. That strikes me as odd. (b) It would mean that Adam came to be in God's "image" when God made him a physical body. This completes the oddity: what the Father begets is not in his image, while what he makes is. Now we have not merely an oddity, but a real problem. © Genesis uses different language to describe the likeness of animals to their offspring ("after their kind") than the language used to describe man's likeness to God ("in his image, after his likeness"). (d) No biblical text interprets the imago Dei as implying that God is anthropomorphic. Instead the NT interprets it in terms of moral and spiritual likeness (e.g., Col. 3:10). (e) The NT also includes statements asserting that believers will be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29; see also 2 Cor. 3:18), which implies that the issue here is not merely physical appearance. (f) Scholars investigating the language in its ancient Near Eastern cultural context have shown that the idea was not that humans shared the same physical nature and likeness as God, but rather that humans functioned as the physical, visible representatives of God. (g) Paul's description of Christ in Colossians 1:15 as "the image of the invisible God" confirms this interpretation: God's nature is invisible, but Christ was the physical embodiment and incarnational representative of the invisible God.

[StuddleyG]

. This is true specifically of the Son, not of the Father (and not of the Holy Spirit). Thus, God the Father does not have a physical body, because he did not become incarnate. It is God the Son who became incarnate and therefore has, in his human nature, a physical body.

"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise" (John 5:19).

[cdowis]

Rob,

Thanks for your response.

It reinforces how the contemporary Christian church has replaced the prophets with theologians and Bible scholars, without authority.

The ancient church was lead by prophets, and, as Nibley points out in The World and the Prophets, the restored church has someone who has proclaimed, "I have seen". Those apostles and prophets lead the church, and were the foundation of that church. Paul taught us that those apostles and prophets would always be part of the true church.

Our interchange here makes me think how Saul must have argued and debated with Peter and those Christian prophets, pointing out that the Hebrew scriptures contradicted the revelations of those prophets. As a Pharasee, I can imagine that he was very intelligent, and very clever in his arguments.

You have reminded me how very grateful I am that the Lord has restored His prophets to us today. Prophets who have seen, and have testified.

Christ is "one substance" with the Father with respect to deity, not humanity.

It's clear that if you can devise such an argument out of whole cloth, as it were, you are far more clever than I am.

So, I think you will agree there is no point in quibbling over such things. You will have a ready answer. The Imago Dei has been throughly discussed with articles published in peer-reviewed journals, with no reference to Joseph Smith's visions, of course.

[Brennin]

Rob,

Thanks for your response.

It reinforces how the contemporary Christian church has replaced the prophets with theologians and Bible scholars, without authority.

The ancient church was lead by prophets, and, as Nibley points out in The World and the Prophets, the restored church has someone who has proclaimed, "I have seen". Those apostles and prophets lead the church, and were the foundation of that church. Paul taught us that those apostles and prophets would always be part of the true church.

Our interchange here makes me think how Saul must have argued and debated with Peter and those Christian prophets, pointing out that the Hebrew scriptures contradicted the revelations of those prophets. As a Pharasee, I can imagine that he was very intelligent, and very clever in his arguments.

You have reminded me how very grateful I am that the Lord has restored His prophets to us today. Prophets who have seen, and have testified.

It's clear that if you can devise such an argument out of whole cloth, as it were, you are far more clever than I am.

So, I think you will agree there is no point in quibbling over such things. You will have a ready answer. The Imago Dei has been throughly discussed with articles published in peer-reviewed journals, with no reference to Joseph Smith's visions, of course.

Hebrews 1

1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Prophets are a thing of the past. Incidentally, I know something your Smith did not. Hebrews was not written by Paul but Smith wrote as if it were.

[cdowis]

Hebrews 1

1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Prophets are a thing of the past.

OK, so at the death of Christ there were no more prophets, no revelation. Paul was a false prophet.

Check.

Incidentally, I know something your Smith did not. Hebrews was not written by Paul but Smith wrote as if it were.

What are you talking about? Please be specific and give us your evidence that JS said that Paul wrote in Hebrew. Anyway, according to you, Paul was a false prophet anyway -- no prophets can be called after the death of Christ, right?

Thanks for giving us an excellent example of why we need living prophets, rather than the wisdom of man interpreting the scriptures. In the book of Acts, we find that there was another apostle called, and another prophet called after the resurrection. Paul himself tells us in Eph chapter 4 that there will always be apostles and prophets in the church's organization.

[Brennin]

cdowis,

You need to learn how to quote properly. Paul was not a prophet; he was apostle to the gentiles. And I did not write anything about Paul writing or not writing in Hebrew. I wrote Paul did not write Hebrews, something of which Smith was unaware. See the difference?

[cdowis]

cdowis,

You need to learn how to quote properly. Paul was not a prophet; he was apostle to the gentiles.

He was false prophet because he wrote prophecies about future events. We can ignore his writings because the scriptures were written by revelation, and since he was not a prophet, he did not receive revelation and his writings are not scripture.

Paul told us that he had visions and prophets receive revelation and visions. Again, he was a false prophet, according to you.

And I did not write anything about Paul writing or not writing in Hebrew. I wrote Paul did not write Hebrews, something of which Smith was unaware. See the difference?

OK, so JS was a false prophet because he made a mistake.

Your ignorance of the scriptures is absolutely breathtaking. I suggest that you stop now while you still can maintain some dignity.

"Paul was not a prophet" .... what nonsense.

[Brennin]

Your ignorance of the scriptures is absolutely breathtaking. I suggest that you stop now while you still can maintain some dignity.

Right back at you.

1. The last prophets were of Christ's generation.

2. There is a difference between the office of prophet and the charism of prophecy. (Even your religion makes such a distinction.)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Right back at you.

1. The last prophets were of Christ's generation.

CFR, there is not a singal biblical reference that there would not be any porphets ater "Christ's generation".

2. There is a difference between the office of prophet and the charism of prophecy. (Even your religion makes such a distinction.)

Yes, there is, so what.

I wrote Paul did not write Hebrews, something of which Smith was unaware

You realise this is a moot poitn right? JS may very well have been wrong about this non doctirnal issue. CFR that prophets need to be infaliable.

[cdowis]

1. The last prophets were of Christ's generation.

2. There is a difference between the office of prophet and the charism of prophecy. (Even your religion makes such a distinction.)

I see that you did not take my advice. You are digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Can you give us the scriptural references for points 1 and 2. I understand that is the teachings of your theologians, but it is not based on the scriptures. Where does it say that revelations and prophets were to stop "in the generation of Christ"?

Read Ephesians 4:11-14 and find out what the Bible tells us, rather than your theologians.

And no, my religion does not have a difference between an apostle and prophet. I could expand on that if you were interested, but we have specifically voted in General Conference that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles are designated as prophets, seers, and revelators. Indeed, each member of the First Presidence (the President of the Church and his counselors) hold the office of apostle.

An apostle is a prophet, and it is clear that Paul was a prophet. He received revelations and visions, gave prophecies on future events, etc.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

An apostle is a prophet, and it is clear that Paul was a prophet. He received revelations and visions, gave prophecies on future events, etc.

I will add that he did for see that before Christ returnes there would be a falling away. He did fortell of that event.

How is Paul different then Moses? I think this is an important question to ask.

[Zakuska]

Right back at you.

1. The last prophets were of Christ's generation.

2. There is a difference between the office of prophet and the charism of prophecy. (Even your religion makes such a distinction.)

So then what you are really saying is that many years after Christ that John prophesied falsely about some prophets who would prophesy thousands of years after Christs generation .

Rev. 11

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

Gotcha.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So then what you are really saying is that many years after Christ that John prophecied falsey about some prophets who would prophecy thousands of years after Christs generation .

Simply a brilliant point.

[Zakuska]

This is true specifically of the Son, not of the Father (and not of the Holy Spirit). Thus, God the Father does not have a physical body, because he did not become incarnate. It is God the Son who became incarnate and therefore has, in his human nature, a physical body.

"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise" (John 5:19).

Theres more where that came from...

Heb. 11: 27

24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh

[Anakin7]

Rob Bopwman [and my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Masters Brothers and Sisters In Christ Jesus] From my LDS JEDI Knight Archive I found my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Brother In Christ Jesus Kerry Shirts paper - http://www2.ida.net/...tail/reisno.htm

True Salvation Is In Jesus Christ The Person

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You're getting to be quite the broken record. Whenever an argument doesn't go well for your side, you pull out this chestnut about Christianity replacing prophets with theologians and scholars. But you don't mind having your own scholars, like Nibley, whom you cite in the very next breath.

It's of absolutely no value to have "someone who has proclaimed, 'I have seen,'" if he lied. Sorry, but there's no nice-sounding way to put it.

I have other comments on your post, but the issues here are off topic, so I'll start another thread. Suffice it to say here that if you ever had someone who proclaimed, "I have seen," you don't any longer. But I'll pursue this point in the new thread.

Rob,

Thanks for your response.

It reinforces how the contemporary Christian church has replaced the prophets with theologians and Bible scholars, without authority.

The ancient church was lead by prophets, and, as Nibley points out in The World and the Prophets, the restored church has someone who has proclaimed, "I have seen". Those apostles and prophets lead the church, and were the foundation of that church. Paul taught us that those apostles and prophets would always be part of the true church.

Our interchange here makes me think how Saul must have argued and debated with Peter and those Christian prophets, pointing out that the Hebrew scriptures contradicted the revelations of those prophets. As a Pharasee, I can imagine that he was very intelligent, and very clever in his arguments.

You have reminded me how very grateful I am that the Lord has restored His prophets to us today. Prophets who have seen, and have testified.

It's clear that if you can devise such an argument out of whole cloth, as it were, you are far more clever than I am.

So, I think you will agree there is no point in quibbling over such things. You will have a ready answer. The Imago Dei has been throughly discussed with articles published in peer-reviewed journals, with no reference to Joseph Smith's visions, of course.

[Anakin7]

Rob Bopwman [and my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Masters Brothers and Sisters In Christ Jesus] From my LDS JEDI Knight Archive I found my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Brother In Christ Jesus Kerry Shirts paper - http://www2.ida.net/...tail/reisno.htm

True Salvation Is In Jesus Christ The Person

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Repost for Rob