Physical Body

[CV75]

They could simply think God was revealing himself in some form with some substance for their personal benefit while still thinking God didn't really have any.

I guess that's OK to the degree that they, whether as spirit or mortal or resurrected people, worship Him in spirit and in truth (spirit and truth being some kind of material as well, as I described in #50 above).

[CV75]

Would a non-LDS individual please summarize a fairly consensus view of the purpose of our having / God giving us a mortal body and a resurrection?

[HeatherAnn]

Would a non-LDS individual please summarize a fairly consensus view of the purpose of our having / God giving us a mortal body and a resurrection?

Would an individual please use some manners?

1. This is a "Mormon" Dialogue Forum

2. If you asked a question & somebody responded... isn't it common courtesy to at least aknowledge it?

Edited September 17, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[paulhadik]

Hey ROARS!!!!

it is always an honor to read anything you write. Just peeking in. I agree with you as usual. I would only say it is one thing to say that Jesus retained A body after the resurrection; but another to say that Jesus retained the SAME body after the resurrection

(I just read an old post, whatever i wrote all those years ago on ZLMB that angered you , please forgive me, even though I know you have)

[Calm]

Hey ROARS!!!!

it is always an honor to read anything you write. Just peeking in. I agree with you as usual. I would only say it is one thing to say that Jesus retained A body after the resurrection; but another to say that Jesus retained the SAME body after the resurrection

(I just read an old post, whatever i wrote all those years ago on ZLMB that angered you , please forgive me, even though I know you have)

Paul!!!!

I was thinking of you just a little while ago, so glad to see you and am really wondering where you have been and how you've been doing.

[Jesterss]

Would a non-LDS individual please summarize a fairly consensus view of the purpose of our having / God giving us a mortal body and a resurrection?

I think it's already been mentioned by 3DOP and Rob.. whom I don't know what their religious affiliation is, but I know they have been given answers to this very question, not in the same manner asked, but through the general discussion here...

Anyway, my reasoning behind why God gave us mortal bodies is because Angels already existed. Angels know what they know without any progression necessary or the ability to progress. They are who they are, and as it stands now, more knowledgable than us as to who God really is. But my stance is that we were created as mortal beings out of the love of God, who allowed us the ability to grow spiritually here on earth without knowing him from our very existence (like angels have). We are taught to come to know him and understand him by growing spiritually closer to him as we age. He gave us a brain/mind to comprehend and expand upon our knowledge, albeit a finite one. As to the level of knowledge or understanding we achieve, is upon us and what we choose to understand and come to know. I personally believe the mortal body will be shed and we will live in the spiritual one with Jesus and God.

As for the resurrection, as Rob already discussed, we have a physical (mortal) body, and a spiritual "presence/body".. If there was no resurrection, what then was our purpose? To serve God while here yes, that is still the ultimate goal, but the resurrection occurred to give us hope and the realization that God truly loves us to give us an eternal existence to serve him. God wants as many of us to come to him as possible, but he realizes that the human mind and body and heart are weak without faith and hope and love. Now I mentioned that God wants as many of us as possible, and it was said by Jesus that the gentiles who did the works just as the Israelite's did could be saved, but the number of gentiles was miniscule who actually did the works. So Jesus' sacrifice was to bring more of us to him. To disband of the law of the israelites. The law of God and Jesus are the ones that we should all adhere to and can adhere to through faith in Jesus Christ. We no longer have to be a son of David, or Isaac, or Moses, etc.., we are all now sons of God and Jesus, as long as we believe in them.

[CV75]

through the general discussion here...

Thank you!

From this I understand that the non-LDS Christian view, for the most part (with some minor variation between adherents of course) is that:

1. Angels are one set of beings created for God's purposes and we are another set.

2. We were created as finite mortal beings as an expression of God's love, with another path than angels, to come to know and understand Him.

3. He gave us a physical body (brain/mind) on a temporary basis to build our finite knowledge as much as possible.

4. The mortal body will be shed and if we are faithful, we will then be prepared live in the spiritual body or a spiritual "presence/body" with Jesus and God.

5. This raising of the spiritual body to be one with God is the resurrection.

6. The resurrection allows us to continue to serve and be blessed by God.

7. The failure of the human body is demonstrated by denying of the Gentiles the things of God due to their lacking the Israelite birthright, which barrier was removed by Jesus.

8. The advantage of the spiritual body is that it can still individualize from the "oneness" and take on various forms as needed to honor God or express His love.

From this it seems that the physical body is part of one of the many variable pathways that God employs among His varied creations so that they can someday be one with Him in His spiritual creation/Being. Jesus removes the physical and spiritual segregation between angles and men and between Gentiles and Jews so that God is glorified. Interesting! Thanks again --

[Vance]

I think it's already been mentioned by 3DOP and Rob.. whom I don't know what their religious affiliation is, but I know they have been given answers to this very question, not in the same manner asked, but through the general discussion here...

Anyway, my reasoning behind why God gave us mortal bodies is because Angels already existed. Angels know what they know without any progression necessary or the ability to progress. They are who they are, and as it stands now, more knowledgable than us as to who God really is. But my stance is that we were created as mortal beings out of the love of God, who allowed us the ability to grow spiritually here on earth without knowing him from our very existence (like angels have). We are taught to come to know him and understand him by growing spiritually closer to him as we age. He gave us a brain/mind to comprehend and expand upon our knowledge, albeit a finite one. As to the level of knowledge or understanding we achieve, is upon us and what we choose to understand and come to know. I personally believe the mortal body will be shed and we will live in the spiritual one with Jesus and God.

As for the resurrection, as Rob already discussed, we have a physical (mortal) body, and a spiritual "presence/body".. If there was no resurrection, what then was our purpose? To serve God while here yes, that is still the ultimate goal, but the resurrection occurred to give us hope and the realization that God truly loves us to give us an eternal existence to serve him. God wants as many of us to come to him as possible, but he realizes that the human mind and body and heart are weak without faith and hope and love. Now I mentioned that God wants as many of us as possible, and it was said by Jesus that the gentiles who did the works just as the Israelite's did could be saved, but the number of gentiles was miniscule who actually did the works. So Jesus' sacrifice was to bring more of us to him. To disband of the law of the israelites. The law of God and Jesus are the ones that we should all adhere to and can adhere to through faith in Jesus Christ. We no longer have to be a son of David, or Isaac, or Moses, etc.., we are all now sons of God and Jesus, as long as we believe in them.

Are there any Biblical verses that support these assertions?

If not, what is a "sola scripturist" to do?

[Calm]

Are there any Biblical verses that support these assertions?

If not, what is a "sola scripturist" to do?

Vance, the OPer was asking for people's beliefs, he did not set it up as a debate where they were to prove such.

[3DOP]

Hey ROARS!!!!

it is always an honor to read anything you write. Just peeking in. I agree with you as usual. I would only say it is one thing to say that Jesus retained A body after the resurrection; but another to say that Jesus retained the SAME body after the resurrection

(I just read an old post, whatever i wrote all those years ago on ZLMB that angered you , please forgive me, even though I know you have)

Hey Paul,

I suspect we would have to say that there is a correspondence, or continuity with the mortal body and glorified body that in some sense remains from what the mortal body was. This would explain why Jesus could show his wounds to the Apostle Thomas. I doubt that we mean the same molecules. If we did everything we could to restore an old car that had been wrecked and rusted, it would still be the same body. It would be a glorified auto body, but still the same body. Obviously, unless we are one of the incorruptibles, our own bodies will have experienced decay beyond any auto wreck we could imagine. I guess one of the reasons that "the resurrection of the body" is an article of the Apostles' Creed, is because it takes a bit of faith to truly believe in it!

So anyway, about my being irritated. My fault, not yours. There can be no forgiveness where there is no offense. I think I admitted to you years after the fact, that upon my first exposure to internet communications of this sort, I almost wrote an hasty and angry response to something you had written yourself. I think it was the first post I had ever seen from you and I am sure I perceived it as anti-Catholic. But in a moment that I consider a grace from God, I had an impulse to not reply in the manner I had intended, and have been grateful ever since, as it may have set a coolness of tone between us that may never have thawed, as well as a false habit of judgment that would have been reinforced in myself.

Great to see you Paul. Not to distract from the thread, but I am sure cal would like to hear briefly how you are too. You are back in the States now? No longer on the mission field? The family is well I hope? Our two oldest children have married, first grandbaby due around Easter next year, and our youngest is in seminary. I'm still trucking. The time flies. Thanks for any update and God bless you my friend.

Rory

[Vance]

Vance, the OPer was asking for people's beliefs, he did not set it up as a debate where they were to prove such.

Did you notice the question marks at the end of those two sentences?

[ERayR]

calmoriah,

Let me clear up this common misunderstanding about God having a body being a limitation. The correct understanding of the orthodox position is not that it would somehow diminish God's attributes if he were to take on bodily form. We believe that God did just that in the Incarnation. The orthodox position is that the idea that God's essential nature necessarily includes that he is embodied limits his personal, direct presence to the location of that body. In short, it denies God's omnipresence. The doctrine of the Incarnation does not do this because it teaches that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son, has two natures: deity, which is omnipresent, and humanity, which is not. The eternal Son of God is omnipresent (e.g., Matt. 18:20; 28:20), but his physical body is not. Furthermore, the doctrine that God the Father had a physical body even before he became a God is part of a larger theological scenario that conflicts with orthodox theology in several ways (e.g., by denying that God has always been God).

Asking how God can be all-powerful and yet not be able to "smell a rose" misunderstands the nature of omnipotence. The doctrine of divine omnipotence does not mean that God can do the nonsensical or self-contradictory, or that he can do something inconsistent with his nature. It means that all power derives from God and that God can and does accomplish all that he purposes to do. It would be inconsistent with God's nature for him to lie, because it is contrary to God's moral nature. It would be inconsistent with God's nature for his divine being to feel the sensation of thirst, because God's being is not dependent on water for its survival or good. It would also be inconsistent with God's nature for his divine being to experience the sensation of smell, since that sensation is dependent on having air particles carrying specific chemicals from the rose to enter one's nose. However, God in his omniscience knows everything there is to know about water, thirst, roses, odors, and smelling, far more than we can ever know, and he appreciates and takes delight in his creation (Gen. 1:31). Furthermore, God has become incarnate in Jesus Christ, and in that way experienced thirst (John 19:28) and other physical sensations that are natural to human beings--hunger, tiredness, pain and many more, both pleasant and unpleasant, including smells (of both types). Since Christ is eternal deity, he has always known what those experiences feel like, though he experienced them temporally only when he became human. But there are still some things that God will never personally experience, even though he knows everything about them; for example, God will never carry a baby in the womb or experience the sensation of being a trout in a stream. But we do not view these things as "limitations" that in any way diminish God's perfection or his omnipotence.

All I can say is ouch. Such mental contortions must hurt.

[ERayR]

Yes, because God has incarnated himself permanently as a human being. God will dwell forever with redeemed humanity in the new heavens and new earth (Rev. 21:1-3). In the resurrection, we will not be moving in with God--he will be moving in with us!

Wait a minute I was sure you had described the Godhead as three seperate beings, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. So if that is corect how can the physical incarnation of God the Son give God the Father a physical body? Does this also mean the Holy Ghost has a physical body?

[Calm]

The orthodox position is that the idea that God's essential nature necessarily includes that he is embodied limits his personal, direct presence to the location of that body. In short, it denies God's omnipresence.

And yet there is no logical reason this has to be so if it doesn't limit Christ. Edited September 18, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

Let me clear up this common misunderstanding about God having a body being a limitation. The correct understanding of the orthodox position is not that it would somehow diminish God's attributes if he were to take on bodily form. We believe that God did just that in the Incarnation. The orthodox position is that the idea that God's essential nature necessarily includes that he is embodied limits his personal, direct presence to the location of that body. In short, it denies God's omnipresence. The doctrine of the Incarnation does not do this because it teaches that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son, has two natures: deity, which is omnipresent, and humanity, which is not.

That is false doctrine even by traditional Christian theological standards. Traditional Christian theology teaches that Jesus deified the "human nature" that He assumed in mortality, so that He is now fully divine in all aspects of His nature, not that part of Him is still human and part of Him divine:

. . . the Word, I say, of God, who became man just that you might learn from a man how it may be that man should become God. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

The Son in his kindness generously imparted deification to others . . . who are transformed through him into gods, as images of the prototype. (Origen, p. 274.)

For the Word was not degraded by receiving a body, so that he should seek to “receive” God’s gift. Rather he deified what he put on; and, more than that, he bestowed this gift upon the race of men. (Athanasius, p. 384.)

. . . If the works of the Godhead had not taken place by means of the body, man would not have been made divine. (Athanasius, p. 399.)

The Word was made man in order that we might be made divine. (Athanasius, p. 404)

(Source: Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers)

Edited September 18, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You wrote:

Wait a minute I was sure you had described the Godhead as three seperate beings, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. So if that is corect how can the physical incarnation of God the Son give God the Father a physical body? Does this also mean the Holy Ghost has a physical body?

First, I have not described God as three separate beings. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons but not three separate beings or different entities. Second, I did not say that the incarnation of the Son gave the Father a physical body.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

And yet there is no logical reason this has to be so if it doesn't limit Christ.

Context is key here. The idea that God in his divine being has a body entails that he is not omnipresent. The idea that God the Son assumes human nature (including a human body) does not entail that he is not omnipresent because the embodiment is with respect to his assumed human nature, not to his eternal divine nature.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Can you provide a reference showing that any of the church fathers understood the "deification" or "divinization" of man to make human beings omnipresent?

[zerinus]

Context is key here. The idea that God in his divine being has a body entails that he is not omnipresent. The idea that God the Son assumes human nature (including a human body) does not entail that he is not omnipresent because the embodiment is with respect to his assumed human nature, not to his eternal divine nature.

Jesus is not a hybrid! LOL! Jesus is fully divine in all aspects of his nature; not half divine and half human like a mermaid, or some mythological beast.

[Calm]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

Context is key here. The idea that God in his divine being has a body entails that he is not omnipresent.

No it doesn't. It is just an assertion that keeps being made over and over again. One has to rely on assumptions that are not supported scripturally. There is nothing inherent in a spirit that just because it possesses a physical body that it must be localized in every attribute to that body. It is possible that the spirit has an attribute that allows it to be omnipresent even while having some sort of connection to physicality. After all the Holy Ghost manages it when he connects with our spirits with their physical bodies, his contact with that physical nature does not limit him in anyway. Nor did it limit Christ in any fashion for him to have a physical body, it was not as if his divine spirit was totally unconnected to his physical body after all.

Edited September 18, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

zerinus,

Can you provide a reference showing that any of the church fathers understood the "deification" or "divinization" of man to make human beings omnipresent?

It makes them divine. They become "partakers of the divine nature". That means that they acquire the attributes of divinity, including omniscience and omnipresence. They shall "know as they are known" (1 Cor 13:12). How else can somebody become "divine," without acquiring divine attributes?

[ERayR]

ERayR,

You wrote:

First, I have not described God as three separate beings. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons but not three separate beings or different entities. Second, I did not say that the incarnation of the Son gave the Father a physical body.

Ok so we have thre distingt persons in one being. Now just to be sure I looked up the meaning of being.

being [ˈbiːɪŋ]

n

1. the state or fact of existing; existence

2. essential nature; self she put her whole being into the part

3. something that exists or is thought to exist, esp something that cannot be assigned to any category a being from outer space

4. a person; human being

5. (Philosophy) (in the philosophy of Aristotle) actuality Compare becoming [3]

Collins

It still seems to me that you are describing modalism to me.

[Calm]

Ok so we have thre distingt persons in one being. Now just to be sure I looked up the meaning of being.

being [ˈbiːɪŋ]

n

1. the state or fact of existing; existence

2. essential nature; self she put her whole being into the part

3. something that exists or is thought to exist, esp something that cannot be assigned to any category a being from outer space

4. a person; human being

5. (Philosophy) (in the philosophy of Aristotle) actuality Compare becoming [3]

Collins

It still seems to me that you are describing modalism to me.

Modalism only allows God to be either the Father, the Son OR the Spirit, he cannot be all three at once as is described by the classical Trinity.

An analogy would be something along the lines of having a different set of clothing for work, home, sleep, one of the roles including putting on a physical body.

Edited September 18, 2011 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

No it doesn't. It is just an assertion that keeps being made over and over again. One has to rely on assumptions that are not supported scripturally. There is nothing inherent in a spirit that just because it possesses a physical body that it must be localized in every attribute to that body. It is possible that the spirit has an attribute that allows it to be omnipresent even while having some sort of connection to physicality. After all the Holy Ghost manages it when he connects with our spirits with their physical bodies, his contact with that physical nature does not limit him in anyway. Nor did it limit Christ in any fashion for him to have a physical body, it was not as if his divine spirit was totally unconnected to his physical body after all.

I often use the analogy of the sun to explain this. The sun has a physical body of limited size and resides at the center of our solar system. It also shines forth its warmth and light to fill the universe. The same is true for each of the members of the Godhead. The Father and Son have resurrected bodies that reside in heaven, Yet their spirit of light, truth, and love, shines forth to fill the universe. In this sense they are omnipresent.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

We don't believe that Jesus is half-divine and half-human. You are attacking a straw man.

Jesus is not a hybrid! LOL! Jesus is fully divine in all aspects of his nature; not half divine and half human like a mermaid, or some mythological beast.