thesometimesaint Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 So when we are Resurrected we have something God doesn't have?
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 That makes sense.It would be difficult for Jesus to be physically inside of you, since He has a resurrected body of flesh and bone.I agree. However, where we obviously disagree is does God the Father have a body of flesh and bone. The reason I don't hold to this belief is because I don't see it in the Bible. I suppose, if I accepted latter-day scriptures my opinion would be different. This is why I said that some people interpret the Bible through the lens of latter-day scriptures. Take away the latter-day scriptures (the lens) and I don't see how a person could (or would) arrive at the same conclusion (regarding the question, does God the Father have a tangible body).
thesometimesaint Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Are you Kerry Shirts? I haven't had much contact with him, but I seem to vaguely recall seeing him on the old AOL Religion forum in the mid 1990's. Concerning this quote, from the link you provided: " Through research various Christian scholars have concurred with the anthropomorphism of Mormonism and have noted that the Bible is exactly teaching the same thing." What are the names of these "various Christian scholars" who concur or agree with Mormonism's anthropomorphic view of God? Do you have any primary sources you (or Kerry) could site?No I'm not Kerry Shirts. I just agree with his arguments. What difference would that make?
Freedom Posted November 29, 2012 Author Posted November 29, 2012 I agree. However, where we obviously disagree is does God the Father have a body of flesh and bone. The reason I don't hold to this belief is because I don't see it in the Bible. I suppose, if I accepted latter-day scriptures my opinion would be different. This is why I said that some people interpret the Bible through the lens of latter-day scriptures. Take away the latter-day scriptures (the lens) and I don't see how a person could (or would) arrive at the same conclusion (regarding the question, does God the Father have a tangible body).From my reading, the bible is silent on the matter so it is not possible to draw a conclusion either way strictly based on the bible. Thus the need for modern revelation. God is spirit and we must worship him in spirit. If being a spirit means not having a body, when worshiping him in spirit must mean worshiping him without a body. We cannot take one part of the verse literally and the next figuratively. Thus, this verse is inconclusive. 1
LDS Curious Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 If God breathed something, then he must have lungs.Unless "God breathed" is a poetic way of saying that God is the origin of scripture. And it IS poetic...not literal.
thesometimesaint Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 That Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God.That Jesus is the literal Son of God.That Moses saw the finger of God, and his backside.That we are created in the likeness and image of God.I have more if you want them.
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 So when we are Resurrected we have something God doesn't have?That's an interesting question. However, since I believe Jesus is God, and Jesus has a body of flesh and bones, and we will be like Him, then the answer would be "No."Of course, the answer could be "Yes" since, according to LDS theology, the Holy Ghost does not have a body of flesh and bones.
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 No I'm not Kerry Shirts. I just agree with his arguments. What difference would that make?Because if you were, then I might get a better answer as to the source for his statement. I'm still curious to know who these Christian scholars are that "concur" with LDS theology that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. In reality, doesn't LDS Theology say that God the Father is a glorified, resurrected Man (just like Jesus)?
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 From my reading, the bible is silent on the matter so it is not possible to draw a conclusion either way strictly based on the bible. Thus the need for modern revelation. God is spirit and we must worship him in spirit. If being a spirit means not having a body, when worshiping him in spirit must mean worshiping him without a body. We cannot take one part of the verse literally and the next figuratively. Thus, this verse is inconclusive.I worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth every day. This does not mean I shed my body in doing so. That is a misinterpretation of the text.
bluebell Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 I agree. However, where we obviously disagree is does God the Father have a body of flesh and bone. The reason I don't hold to this belief is because I don't see it in the Bible. The bible is silent on the issue, in that it doesn't come out and say either way. It says that God is spirit, but it also says that God is love-obviously such pronouncements do not preclude God from being more than one thing (we know God is not just love, so why interpret the other scripture as meaning God is just spirit? It seems like a double standard). I suppose, if I accepted latter-day scriptures my opinion would be different. This is why I said that some people interpret the Bible through the lens of latter-day scriptures. Take away the latter-day scriptures (the lens) and I don't see how a person could (or would) arrive at the same conclusion (regarding the question, does God the Father have a tangible body).Well, the bible says that looking at Jesus is the same as looking at the Father, and Jesus has a body of flesh and bone, so that's something in my opinion. Also, the bible says that our physical body was made in God's image-that also seems to be something of worth in the conversation, in my opinion. Another thing is that the bible teaches that every person will be resurrected-what would the purpose of that be and why would we have something that God the Father doesn't have, in Heaven? Being resurrected is supposed to be a blessing to us. It seems weird that we are blessed with something that God the Father isn't blessed with.But I certainly don't deny that it is latter-day revelation which clears up the issue once and for all.
LDS Curious Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Inspiration literally means the drawing in of breath. So, it is interesting that the word "pneuma" is translated to english in this case as inspiration, when it would be more accurately translated as expiration. You have the word "inspiration", meaning to inhale, and the word pneuma meaning to blow, or exhale. I can see how they would translate it "God breathed".All scripture is given by the expiration (exhalation) of God (or by the blowing or giving of God's spirit which gives life). Think of the symbology of the creation. God gave, or blew, the breath of life into Adam. Adam inspired or inhaled God's breath or spirit, giving him life. That is how revelation works, God breathes out, we breath in. Communion with God through prayer is shared breath (spirit) with God, we breath out, God breathes in, God breathes out, we breathe in. I practice meditative prayer daily, It is interesting to note how meditation is often centered around the breath (very symbolic).Two points if I may. On the "inspired" / "God breathed" issue, you are confusing Greek and Latin. The original is the Greek. "Theopneustos" DOES mean "God breathed", but does not indicate the "direction" of the breath (in or out). God can "breathe" in or out. Theopneustos doesn't convey which one. On the other hand, "inspired" DOES indicate the direction of the breath, from the Latin "in" and "spirare" (to breathe). If one translates the Greek correctly, "god breathed" is the correct translation of "theopneustos". That's why they translate it that way. BUT, the Latin "inspired" is NOT a good translation of theopneustos.Second: Given the penchant of most NT writers (including Paul) of using types and OT symbolism in their writing, you are CERTAINLY correct to say that the wording is meant to recall the Creation account of Genesis. That makes your idea of God "breathing out" and we "breathing in" almost certainly the idea intended by Paul.
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 That Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God.That Jesus is the literal Son of God.That Moses saw the finger of God, and his backside.That we are created in the likeness and image of God.I have more if you want them.Sure, this is fun. Would you mind citing your scriptural references so I can look them up? I believe I am thinking of the same verses you are, but I don't want to be presumptuous.
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 The bible is silent on the issue, in that it doesn't come out and say either way. It says that God is spirit, but it also says that God is love-obviously such pronouncements do not preclude God from being more than one thing (we know God is not just love, so why interpret the other scripture as meaning God is just spirit? It seems like a double standard).Excellent point! Well, the bible says that looking at Jesus is the same as looking at the Father, and Jesus has a body of flesh and bone, so that's something in my opinion. Also, the bible says that our physical body was made in God's image-that also seems to be something of worth in the conversation, in my opinion.Another thing is that the bible teaches that every person will be resurrected-what would the purpose of that be and why would we have something that God the Father doesn't have, in Heaven?Being resurrected is supposed to be a blessing to us. It seems weird that we are blessed with something that God the Father isn't blessed with.But I certainly don't deny that it is latter-day revelation which clears up the issue once and for all.I think there are various interpretations which can be held based on some of the things you've mentioned. For example, Oneness Pentecostals will say the reason we see the Father when we look at Jesus is because Jesus is the Father. Of course, I don't subscribe to that idea/belief. But, I can see why they hold to it (based on a few cherry picked verses and ignoring others).Likewise, I can see why LDS view God the Father has having a tangible body (once again, based on a few cherry picked verses) which are interpreted through the lens of latter-day revelation.With regards to "heaven". I don't personally believe our eternal home will be in "heaven". Rather, I subscribe to the idea/belief that God did not make this planet in vain. Man was made to inhabit and live on earth. If "heaven" is a spiritual place (or dimension) then why bother having a physical tabernacle? Having a physical body would only make sense if we are going to exist in the physical realm.
bluebell Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 With regards to "heaven". I don't personally believe our eternal home will be in "heaven". Rather, I subscribe to the idea/belief that God did not make this planet in vain. Man was made to inhabit and live on earth. If "heaven" is a spiritual place (or dimension) then why bother having a physical tabernacle? Having a physical body would only make sense if we are going to exist in the physical realm.LDS believe similar things about the earth, but not because heaven is a spiritual dimension.
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 LDS believe similar things about the earth, but not because heaven is a spiritual dimension.I will admit I do not quite understand the LDS concept of "heaven" or "heavens". Yes, I know the terms, such as Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial, but I don't know if these words are referring to physical planes of existence or another dimension, or something ethereal (spiritual).
Vance Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 So, now we choose to believe what makes the most sense to us.Ok, but what makes sense to one, doesn't to another. It all depends on how you look at stuff. I choose to believe what the Bible says.Nah, you only think that. The Bible doesn't really say what you think it says. But you, of course, can't see that. It all depends on how you interpret it.What makes you think that your interpretation is any better than anyone else's? Some choose to believe what latter-day revelation says and interpret the Bible through that lens.And some choose to not really believe what the Bible actually says but rather interpret the Bible through the lens of apostate Traditional, Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelicalism.I choose to let the Bible speak to me, rather than try to force it to mean what I want.
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Ok, but what makes sense to one, doesn't to another. It all depends on how you look at stuff.Nah, you only think that. The Bible doesn't really say what you think it says. But you, of course, can't see that. It all depends on how you interpret it.What makes you think that your interpretation is any better than anyone else's?And some choose to not really believe what the Bible actually says but rather interpret the Bible through the lens of apostate Traditional, Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelicalism.I choose to let the Bible speak to me, rather than try to force it to mean what I want. Your post made me laugh. Why do you hate Traditional Christianity?Why do you hate Orthodox Christianity?Why do you hate Protestant Christianity?Why do you hate Evangelicals?
bluebell Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 I will admit I do not quite understand the LDS concept of "heaven" or "heavens". Yes, I know the terms, such as Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial, but I don't know if these words are referring to physical planes of existence or another dimension, or something ethereal (spiritual).We believe that since everyone present will have a perfect resurrected body of flesh and bone, each place will definitely be physical.In a nutshell-"Earth-the planet on which we live, created by God through Jesus Christ to be used by man during his mortal probation. Its final destiny is to become glorified and exalted (D&C 77:1–2; 130:8–9). The earth will become an eternal inheritance of those who have lived worthy of a celestial glory (D&C 88:14–26). They will enjoy the presence of the Father and the Son (D&C 76:62)."
Vance Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Your post made me laugh. Good. Everyone needs more humor.Why do you hate Traditional Christianity?Why do you hate Orthodox Christianity?Why do you hate Protestant Christianity?Why do you hate Evangelicals?See, there you go reading my comments through apostate lenses and seeing something that isn't there.Kind of proves my point. 1
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 We believe that since everyone present will have a perfect resurrected body of flesh and bone, each place will definitely be physical.In a nutshell-"Earth-the planet on which we live, created by God through Jesus Christ to be used by man during his mortal probation. Its final destiny is to become glorified and exalted (D&C 77:1–2; 130:8–9). The earth will become an eternal inheritance of those who have lived worthy of a celestial glory (D&C 88:14–26). They will enjoy the presence of the Father and the Son (D&C 76:62)."Since this thread is about the inspiration (God-breathed) of the scriptures, I won't derail it with further questions about the LDS view of "heaven". But I'm not sure I can create a new thread. Is there a thread here that explains the LDS concept of heaven?
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Good. Everyone needs more humor.See, there you go reading my comments through apostate lenses and seeing something that isn't there.Kind of proves my point.Since you don't know me, how can you call me an "apostate"? One would need to be part of original Christianity to apostatize from it.
Vance Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Since you don't know me, how can you call me an "apostate"? One would need to be part of original Christianity to apostatize from it.Would using the word "heretical" make you feel better?
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Would using the word "heretical" make you feel better?Nope. Because a "heretic" is someone from within the same faith. For example, if I were a member of the LDS church and I were teaching false doctrine, I would then be a "heretic". But a person who is not a part of that group would not be a "heretic" for teaching (or believing) something the LDS church did not teach or believe. If you are going to use religious terminology, try to learn what those words mean first before using them.
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Does "Infidel" work for you then?"A person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own."Yep!
Recommended Posts