Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Does God Have A Resurrected Body Of Flesh And Bones?


Recommended Posts

Posted

So in this council of Gods was there one more powerful than our God the Father? If not where did His resurrected body come from?

 I have no idea where any resurrected body comes from--or how it is brought forth.

 

But if you are going to go there--let's start from the beginning--where did the Spirit come from?

 

Steve--once the notion that there are other gods established--then the theology of Trinitarianism goes down in flames, IMO.

 

And that opens the door to an infinite number of other questions. The boundaries of Trinitarianism crumbles.

Posted (edited)

 I have no idea where any resurrected body comes from--or how it is brought forth.

 

But if you are going to go there--let's start from the beginning--where did the Spirit come from?

 

Steve--once the notion that there are other gods established--then the theology of Trinitarianism goes down in flames, IMO.

 

And that opens the door to an infinite number of other questions. The boundaries of Trinitarianism crumbles.

At the cost of pluralism. IOW when we stipulate to other Gods we no longer claim to worship THE only God, but one among many. We, as LDS, may be comfortable with that but it is a huge issue for other beliefs. It also exposes us to the same problem that naturalistic explanations of creation face in that we have no force (being?) at which to point which started the whole thing. We are left with "it just always existed". That also is problematic for many other beliefs.

 

Just because we are comfortable with such beliefs does not mean they are not problems for others.

On Edit. Btw the spirit would have been created by a God who created everything else. WE LDS have a problem explaining where it came from (because we can only state that it always existed - though I think you may mean intelligences) because we believe in a God who is not the creator of everything.

Edited by CA Steve
Posted

But then other Christians use this scripture to show that Jesus is the Father who came to earth. Why are they asking to show them the Father when they are already looking at him (Jesus)?

 The temple might reveal that--or a picture of the first vision--one being the express image of the other:

 

Hebrews 1:3---King James Version (KJV)

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

 

The Trinitarians do not usually believe they are the same person--so, the question then becomes--is Christ the same God as His Father?

 

John 20:17---King James Version (KJV)

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Posted

At the cost of pluralism. IOW when we stipulate to other Gods we no longer claim to worship THE only God, but one among many.

 

Our claim remains in tact--when we follow the Biblical parameters:

 

1 Corinthians 8:6----King James Version (KJV)

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Posted

At the cost of pluralism. IOW when we stipulate to other Gods we no longer claim to worship THE only God, but one among many. We, as LDS, may be comfortable with that but it is a huge issue for other beliefs. It also exposes us to the same problem that naturalistic explanations of creation face in that we have no force (being?) at which to point which started the whole thing. We are left with "it just always existed". That also is problematic for many other beliefs.

 

Just because we are comfortable with such beliefs does not mean they are not problems for others.

 

My only responsibility is to fairly and accurately describe what I believe.  I'm really not responsible for what others think of my beliefs.

Posted (edited)

Restating what we believe does not answer the question. Either we believe in an Omni-everything God or in one among many. Either God the father is the creator of everything or he is dependent on another being for his existence.

 

Which is it?

Edited by CA Steve
Posted

Do you believe in multiple Gods, as in more than the trinity? If not, where did God the father get a resurrected body?

 

Where did Christ get a resurrected body?  Did Christ stop being God because he received a physical body?  

Posted

So in this council of Gods was there one more powerful than our God the Father? If not where did His resurrected body come from?

 

What did Christ say about the things he did?  He said he did only the things that he saw the Father do.  When did he see the Father do them?

Posted

The most important doctrine we have is that God has a body.

That makes him immanent, and therefore our Father, and someone we can relate to.

It avoids the whole Trinity mess.

Most importantly, it makes Him have the same nature we do, though he is infinitely above us in perfection.

Lastly the whole doctrine of exaltation requires that we can become like him. Without this doctrine we might as well be Methodist.

Posted

Restating what we believe does not answer the question. Either we believe in an Omni-everything God or in one among many. Either God the father is the creator of everything or he is dependent on another being for his existence.

 

Which is it?

Semantic silliness. You really don't want to go there.
Posted (edited)

Neither do you apparently.

Oh gosh.  Really??  It is so obvious.

. Either we believe in an Omni-everything God or in one among many. Either God the father is the creator of everything or he is dependent on another being for his existence.

 

Which is it?

What is an "omni everything God" and why does it exclude other possibilities, logically?

 

Suppose there were 9,857 "Omni-Everything Gods" whatever that means, all of whom were equal?

 

Why does one be "Omni- Everything"- whatever that means- God- whatever that means, "Create"- whatever that means, "everything" - whatever that means, AND be "dependent" - whatever that means- on another "being"- whatever that means?

 

Why not?  Are unicorns part of "everything"?   Is murder part of "everything"?  Is string theory part of "everything"?

 

In what way must be be "Dependent"?  What even do you mean by "existence" this case?  Again does "goodness" "exist"?  Or is goodness just an idea we have?  What about the color blue?  Does it "exist" independent of our perception of it?  Is existence independent of our perceptions a characteristic that is necessary to "exist"?

 

And then the "which is it?" question- do you really think- IF you could logically explain ALL the terms of the previous nonsense sentence- that the only two possible logical alternatives are one of those nonsense choices??

 

Do you really want to CFR on every one of those points AND all the other ambiguities just contained in those statements and prove them to make sense?

 

As I said, do you really want to go there?

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted

If you are so sure, why OP that "I posted this question because of some of the criticisms I have heard from non-LDS."

Their "criticisms or questions" would have no relevance to you in your acceptance of what you were taught, nor would their Homoousian beliefs bother you in the least.

 

 Hi Wisteria.

 

That is true--I don't believe one's belief in the Homoousios God has one thing to do with LDS belief in God the Father having a body of flesh and bones.

 

But it does have an effect on the Trinitarian doctrine--IE--if they believe in the Trinity being a Homoousios God--then why do the Father and Son have different substances, as they maintain?

 

I don't believe the Trinitarians can answer the question--does God have a body of flesh and bones--without dividing the substance. The fact is--the LDS have more belief in the Homoousios God than the Trinitarians do, or so it seems to me.

Posted

 

But it does have an effect on the Trinitarian doctrine--IE--if they believe in the Trinity being a Homoousios God--then why do the Father and Son have different substances, as they maintain?

 

I don't believe the Trinitarians can answer the question--does God have a body of flesh and bones--without dividing the substance. The fact is--the LDS have more belief in the Homoousios God than the Trinitarians do, or so it seems to me.

 

We don't believe the Father and Son have different substances.  Along with the Holy Spirit, they share a single divine nature (substance).  The question of how Jesus could have a body of flesh and bones but not the Father, without dividing the substance, is a good one.  I tried to explain why we think the Incarnation doesn't divide the substance in the other thread.  The answer relates to how we understand infinity and what an infinite 'substance' is like. 

Posted

We don't believe the Father and Son have different substances.  Along with the Holy Spirit, they share a single divine nature (substance).  The question of how Jesus could have a body of flesh and bones but not the Father, without dividing the substance, is a good one.  I tried to explain why we think the Incarnation doesn't divide the substance in the other thread.  The answer relates to how we understand infinity and what an infinite 'substance' is like. 

 I appreciate your answer.

Posted

The most important doctrine we have is that God has a body.

 

Joseph Smith said, "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is

more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes".

 

So apparently even the spirit children had some type of body that was in the image of the

Father's body.  Is that true?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Posted

Joseph Smith said, "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is

more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes".

 

So apparently even the spirit children had some type of body that was in the image of the

Father's body.  Is that true?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

D&C 129 tells us spirits look just like people.  Why would spirit children look any different?

Posted

D&C 129 tells us spirits look just like people.  Why would spirit children look any different?

 

I'm not saying that they did look different. But if spirit is matter like Smith said, then spirit

children had a physical body because matter is physical.

 

Jim

Posted

My only responsibility is to fairly and accurately describe what I believe. I'm really not responsible for what others think of my beliefs.

Amen.

Posted

What did Christ say about the things he did? He said he did only the things that he saw the Father do. When did he see the Father do them?

Hmmm this is a very good point.

Posted (edited)

What did Christ say about the things he did?  He said he did only the things that he saw the Father do.  When did he see the Father do them?

 

If you believe Brigham Young it would have been in the Garden of Eden...

 

After all, Christ hadn't been born as a spirit child when his father died on an earth and was resurrected.

So he had to see his father do it elsewhere.

Edited by JLHPROF
Posted

If you believe Brigham Young it would have been in the Garden of Eden...

 

After all, Christ hadn't been born as a spirit child when his father died on an earth and was resurrected.

So he had to see his father do it elsewhere.

 

Of course He could have seen it all in a vision of the past. He is a God doncha know.

Posted (edited)

I'm not saying that they did look different. But if spirit is matter like Smith said, then spirit

children had a physical body because matter is physical.

Jim

That's the belief.

The brother of Jared saw the finger of the premortal Jehovah in the BOM, and it is believed that is because there are spirit bodies.

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted (edited)

Luke 24:39----King James Version (KJV)

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

 

My question is--does God have a resurrected body of flesh and bones?

 

I posted this question because of some of the criticisms I have heard from non-LDS.

 

Comments?

 

I am Catholic and the answer is perhaps slightly different than for LDS.

 

For LDS: Yes*, Yes, and No.

For Catholics: No, Yes, and No.

 

*Do you hold the corporal body of the Father has been resurrected? Is it official LDS teaching that Heavenly Father at one time died? If Heavenly Father has never died, then your answer is the same as for Catholics.

Edited by 3DOP
Posted (edited)

 

Our claim remains in tact--when we follow the Biblical parameters ...

In tact?  OK.  I must respectfully ask that everyone on this thread avoid being rude, then, because if our claim only remains in tact, if someone is rude, that means our claim will disappear, and we wouldn't want that! :o ... :D:rofl::D

 

Sorry.  Couldn't resist. :unknw: (For anyone who's a little slow on the uptake "In tact" =/=  "intact") :D (Perhaps I should have been more tactful in pointing out this spelling faux pas, alas).

Edited by Kenngo1969
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...