The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[Anakin7]

    So God is like the Jack Chick cartoons where God sits on a throne with a anthropormorphic body yet with no eyes/ears/nose/eyebrows/hair on his egg shaped head. But again in "christian" theology God has no anthropomorphic form or shape. He only appears and portrays himself as in Human form/shape to help us understand "Him" better to relate to Him/It.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

              Anakin7

[danielwoods]

So God is like the Jack Chick cartoons where God sits on a throne with a anthropormorphic body yet with no eyes/ears/nose/eyebrows/hair on his egg shaped head. But again in "christian" theology God has no anthropomorphic form or shape. He only appears and portrays himself as in Human form/shape to help us understand "Him" better to relate to Him/It.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

              Anakin7

Yes, for example, Isaiah 66:1 says, "Thus says the LORD:'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool …'"

Isaiah 55:8-9 says, "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the LORD. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.'"

If you honestly think that God has a body, then tell me what color is his hair, and how long are his toe nails? Does he clip them? And if he does do the clippings fall on the earth, since the Earth is his foot stool? 

 

 

Notice also, Revelation 4:7 "And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.

8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,

10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

 

Each beast is described using the word, "like" because it's a description of something we've never seen or experienced before, so in order for us to relate to it, we have to compare it to something we understand. But a couple of observations about God here are pertinent. 

 

God never sleeps, and he always has been God, is and always will be God. Then it's God alone who has "created all things...". This is where the LDS Doctrine breaks rank with the doctrine of the Biblical text. The LDS don't believe matter was created, rather just organized. 

 

So we all have a choice. I choose to believe what the bible and the Spirit teaches me. 

Edited September 1, 2015 by danielwoods

[Anakin7]

Moderator please delete the above post #528 some knuckelhead came into our Kingdom House unwelcome. Thank you.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

Edited September 2, 2015 by Anakin7

[Anakin7]

Daniel thank you for your thoughtful polemical post. I also choose what The Holy Bible and the spirit teach me as well. I see God's actions and metaphor's in the Biblical descriptions of HIM. I notice that descriptions regarding God as a "Him" in The Text that you presented. Many Early Christians before and after Nicea believed God as Anthropormorphic and Corporeal. Are they cosigned to the blazes of hell for such a belief ?. LDS Professor/Scholar/Philosopher David Paulsen has a # of materials/works presenting this to be true as well as others. I personaly am a Anchient/Monarch/Eastern/Economic/Social/Godheadian/ Trinitarian. The color of his hair/toenail cutting and them falling to earth comments by you remind me of a # of years ago reading somewhere the middle platonists hellenistic critics of Christianity using a varied form of arguments that you gave in criticizing and making fun of the Saints/Christians who did believe God To Be Anthropormorphic/Corporeal. As a professed born again christian why would you post such ?. Perhaps it was created out of nothing. May True Grace Be with you and those you Love.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

Edited September 2, 2015 by Anakin7

[Bobbieaware]

Daniel thank you for your thoughtful polemical post. I also choose what The Holy Bible and the spirit teach me as well. I see God's actions and metaphor's in the Biblical descriptions of HIM. I notice that descriptions regarding God as a "Him" in The Text that you presented. Many Early Christians before and after Nicea believed God as Anthropormorphic and Corporeal. Are they cosigned to the blazes of hell for such a belief ?. LDS Professor/Scholar/Philosopher David Paulsen has a # of materials/works presenting this to be true as well as others. I personaly am a Anchient/Monarch/Eastern/Economic/Social/Godheadian/ Trinitarian. The color of his hair/toenail cutting and them falling to earth comments by you remind me of a # of years ago reading somewhere the middle platonists hellenistic critics of Christianity using a varied form of arguments that you gave in criticizing and making fun of the Saints/Christians who did believe God To Be Anthropormorphic/Corporeal. As a professed born again christian why would you post such ?. Perhaps it was created out of nothing. May True Grace Be with you and those you Love.In His Eternal Debt/GraceAnakin7

Because they rarely, if ever, allow themselves to think out of the box, I don't believe it's likely our Trinitarian friends have never stopped to realize the fact that the personage of the Son has a resurrected body gives him very real advantages over the personage of the Father. I say this because Paul tells us that within the personage of the Son dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. This means Christ possesses the eternal fullness of the same divine attributes of perfection possessed by the Father; but he does have something the Father doesn't have -- a glorious resurrected body of flesh and bone.

In addition to possessing all the same attributes of divine perfection possessed by the Father, the Son has a body that allows him to mingle among, interact with, and enjoy the sweet companionship of his exalted human brethren and sisters in a way the Father never can. Among the many other advantages that come with possessing a body, Christ's tangible tabernacle (holy temple) is able to physically hug his earthly brethren and sisters with a sweet and holy affectionate embrace And just think of the joys the risen Lord experiences when he shares a delicious and convivial meal with his loving friends. I can actually imagine the Father saying to himself, "if my Son can still be fully divine while dwelling in one of those neat tangible bodies, a body that brings him so much joy, perhaps I should have one too!"

So here's the question I'd like to ask every Trinitarian: If the personage of the Son can possess a physical body, without that body diminishing from his divinity even one iota, would the Father's divinity be diminished in any way if he had a body as well? But if the Father did have a body, it would really make perfect sense because sons (in this case the son of God) are known to take after their fathers, inheriting their father's physical characteristics and traits.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

Moderator please delete the above post #528 some knuckelhead came into our Kingdom House unwelcome. Thank you.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

 

Wait, what? I missed some exciting drama? Shoot.... (hangs head....)

 

Daniel thank you for your thoughtful polemical post. I also choose what The Holy Bible and the spirit teach me as well. I see God's actions and metaphor's in the Biblical descriptions of HIM. I notice that descriptions regarding God as a "Him" in The Text that you presented. Many Early Christians before and after Nicea believed God as Anthropormorphic and Corporeal. Are they cosigned to the blazes of hell for such a belief ?. LDS Professor/Scholar/Philosopher David Paulsen has a # of materials/works presenting this to be true as well as others. I personaly am a Anchient/Monarch/Eastern/Economic/Social/Godheadian/ Trinitarian. The color of his hair/toenail cutting and them falling to earth comments by you remind me of a # of years ago reading somewhere the middle platonists hellenistic critics of Christianity using a varied form of arguments that you gave in criticizing and making fun of the Saints/Christians who did believe God To Be Anthropormorphic/Corporeal. As a professed born again christian why would you post such ?. Perhaps it was created out of nothing. May True Grace Be with you and those you Love.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

 

The only thing that will "cosigned to the blazes of hell" is the rejection of God's grace. I believe that God has a lot of grace for error in belief. He seeks connection through relationship, rejection of that connection is "choosing hell".

 

My comments of hair/toe nail cutting is only offered to demonstrate the absurdity of the belief that God the father has a physical body, which were in response to the absurd assertion that the use of the pronoun "him" must therefore indicate he is male like man is. 

[danielwoods]

Because they rarely, if ever, allow themselves to think out of the box, I don't believe it's likely our Trinitarian friends have never stopped to realize the fact that the personage of the Son has a resurrected body gives him very real advantages over the personage of the Father. I say this because Paul tells us that within the personage of the Son dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. This means Christ possesses the eternal fullness of the same divine attributes of perfection possessed by the Father; but he does have something the Father doesn't have -- a glorious resurrected body of flesh and bone.

In addition to possessing all the same attributes of divine perfection possessed by the Father, the Son has a body that allows him to mingle among, interact with, and enjoy the sweet companionship of his exalted human brethren and sisters in a way the Father never can. Among the many other advantages that come with possessing a body, Christ's tangible tabernacle (holy temple) is able to physically hug his earthly brethren and sisters with a sweet and holy affectionate embrace And just think of the joys the risen Lord experiences when he shares a delicious and convivial meal with his loving friends. I can actually imagine the Father saying to himself, "if my Son can still be fully divine while dwelling in one of those neat tangible bodies, a body that brings him so much joy, perhaps I should have one too!"

So here's the question I'd like to ask every Trinitarian: If the personage of the Son can possess a physical body, without that body diminishing from his divinity even one iota, would the Father's divinity be diminished in any way if he had a body as well? But if the Father did have a body, it would really make perfect sense because sons (in this case the son of God) are known to take after their fathers, inheriting their father's physical characteristics and traits.

 

No. But he doesn't according to the bible. Also neither he nor the divine Jesus actually learn or grow or progress. They have had all knowledge and power forever. Which means he has known all perspectives of every atom in the Universe past present and future all the time. So, the concept of God gaining more experiences or knowledge from having a body is in error. 

[Bobbieaware]

No. But he doesn't according to the bible. Also neither he nor the divine Jesus actually learn or grow or progress. They have had all knowledge and power forever. Which means he has known all perspectives of every atom in the Universe past present and future all the time. So, the concept of God gaining more experiences or knowledge from having a body is in error.

You missed my whole point. I said nothing about learning anything new. I was talking about Jesus' ability to ENJOY his relationship with his embodied brethren and sisters because he too, like them, has a physical body. Because he has a tangible physical body, Jesus can relate to and interact with the children of men PHYSICALLY as well as spiritually. But the Father cannot relate to and interact with us in the same way because he has no physical body and is only a personage of spirit.

For example, because he has a tangible physical body Christ is able to physically embrace others and wipe away their tears, and when he does he is able to FEEL the other person's body, something the Father cannot do because, according to you, he has no physical body. For this undeniable reason, the Fsther can only relate to us spiritually. This means although Jesus is as infinitely perfect as is the Father. he has a definite advantage over the Father because he can directly interact with and perfectly relate to the physical universe; but the Father cannot do the same because he has no physical body. This means Jesus can do things the Father Is unable to do because the Father has no physical body with which to experience the physical realm.

So possessing a physical body most definitely gives Christ an advantage over the Father because he is able to enjoy a wider breadth of experience. Christ can perfectly relate to and interact with the physical AS WELL AS the spiritual universe. Meanwhile, the Father cannot related to and interact with the physical universe in the same way because he has no physical body. Or do you believe the Father can experience all things in the physical realm in precisely the same way the Son can even though he (the Father) has no physical body?

As to your off-point point: How can an intelligent being learn anything if that being already knows everything there is to know?

8 Though he were a Son, yet LEARNED (you cannot learn something you already perfectly know) he obedience by the things which he suffered (in the physical universe);

9 And being MADE perfect (you can't be made into something you already are), he BECAME (you cannot become something you already are) the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Hebrews 5)

Edited September 2, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Vance]

I am simply using pronouns used in scripture. I understand God has no gender.

So when the Bible refers to Him as a He the Bible is wrong?

Sola scriptura under the danielwoods anti-Mormon bus AGAIN.

So, is Jesus not God? Is He not a He either? Was He lying when He told the apostles that when they had seen Him they had seen the Father? So the Father is really a Father because when Jesus calls Him a Father He really didn't mean "Father" but rather a sexless parent? If He is a sexless Parent, why didn't Jesus tell us that He was a sexless Parent?

There is nothing to overcome.

Of course not, there is just something that needs to be thrown under your anti-Mormon bus. Or in this case someone.

Jesus used the word for angel to refer to John as a messenger . . .

So Jesus lied to us? John wasn't really an angel but Jesus lies to us by calling him an angel, but He didn't really mean an "angel" angel but what he meant was an "angel" messenger? Which of course ALL angels ARE "angel" messengers, but danielwoods has decided that there needs to be a separate category angel that doesn't really mean "angel" but only a non-angelic messenger human but this special category angel is only applied when the scriptures are specifically referring to mortal men. And now, using circular logic, we can know that when the scriptures refer to mortal men as "angels" they don't really mean "angel" because we have this special totally fabricated separate category of angels that aren't angels at all but are only messenger mortal humans? And we know this special category of non-angel angels exists because non-angel angels are only referred to as angel when referring to non-angel angels known as mortal humans, but in all other instances "angel" is used it is referring to an angel "angel". And we know this because the word angel is applied to non-mortal humans some of the time. But the other times that it is applied to mortal humans, we know that it doesn't really mean an angel "angel" because the word "angel" is used.

So, now it is obvious, when the word "angel" is used for a messenger from God it is an angel "angel" but when it is used for a mortal human messenger from God it doesn't really mean an angel "angel" but rather a non-angel "angel" and we know this because "angel" is used.

I have pointed out that the Bible describes major differences and some similarities between the two groups, but never ontological equality.

And the logic you use to do it is fallacious.

My position rests on what the bible teaches, not what the LDS church teaches.

Nah, you are ignoring what the Bible really says and are using distorted, contorted and tortuous logic to explain it away.

[Anakin7]

DW thank you again for your thoughtful post. As a True LDS [ I go by the Idiom Titles of Believer/Christian/Disciple/Seeker/

Latter Day Saint/Saint/Mormon] I fully Accept The Awesome Grace of GOD, so by your thought process I am not cosigned to the blazes of Hell, thank you. Once again same arguments used by greek neo-platonists against those Anchient Saints/Christians that believed that GOD was Anthropormorphic/Bodily/Corporeal. May True Grace Be with you and those you Love.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Bobbieaware]

So when the Bible refers to Him as a He the Bible is wrong?Sola scriptura under the danielwoods anti-Mormon bus AGAIN.So, is Jesus not God? Is He not a He either? Was He lying when He told the apostles that when they had seen Him they had seen the Father? So the Father is really a Father because when Jesus calls Him a Father He really didn't mean "Father" but rather a sexless parent? If He is a sexless Parent, why didn't Jesus tell us that He was a sexless Parent?Of course not, there is just something that needs to be thrown under your anti-Mormon bus. Or in this case someone.So Jesus lied to us? John wasn't really an angel but Jesus lies to us by calling him an angel, but He didn't really mean an "angel" angel but what he meant was an "angel" messenger? Which of course ALL angels ARE "angel" messengers, but danielwoods has decided that there needs to be a separate category angel that doesn't really mean "angel" but only a non-angelic messenger human but this special category angel is only applied when the scriptures are specifically referring to mortal men. And now, using circular logic, we can know that when the scriptures refer to mortal men as "angels" they don't really mean "angel" because we have this special totally fabricated separate category of angels that aren't angels at all but are only messenger mortal humans? And we know this special category of non-angel angels exists because non-angel angels are only referred to as angel when referring to non-angel angels known as mortal humans, but in all other instances "angel" is used it is referring to an angel "angel". And we know this because the word angel is applied to non-mortal humans some of the time. But the other times that it is applied to mortal humans, we know that it doesn't really mean an angel "angel" because the word "angel" is used.So, now it is obvious, when the word "angel" is used for a messenger from God it is an angel "angel" but when it is used for a mortal human messenger from God it doesn't really mean an angel "angel" but rather a non-angel "angel" and we know this because "angel" is used.And the logic you use to do it is fallacious.Nah, you are ignoring what the Bible really says and are using distorted, contorted and tortuous logic to explain it away.

I'm surprised Daniel doesn't seem to understand the Biblical doctrine that Jesus Christ is the perfect revelation of God to man. Meaning that if one wants to know who and what the Father is, and what he looks like, then all one needs to do is look to the Son of God. So why is Jesus a male if the God he perfectly represents is sexless?

I'm especially surprised in light of the fact that Jesus had a heavenly Father who needed a mother named Mary to conceive and give birth to his Son. And who can deny that the whole male/female dynamic is epitomized right here in God the Father's divine fatherhood and I'm Mary"s sacred motherhood. Yet he will deny all this and explain it away. It would be interesting to know if Daniel believes Jesus retained his human male identity in the resurrection? I ask this question because if Christ did retain his male identity, one has to wonder why a sexless God would want a male human being to serve as the perfect revelation of its person and nature?

Edited September 2, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

You missed my whole point. I said nothing about learning anything new. I was talking about Jesus' ability to ENJOY his relationship with his embodied brethren and sisters because he too, like them, has a physical body. Because he has a tangible physical body, Jesus can relate to and interact with the children of men PHYSICALLY as well as spiritually. But the Father cannot relate to and interact with us in the same way because he has no physical body and is only a personage of spirit.

For example, because he has a tangible physical body Christ is able to physically embrace others and wipe away their tears, and when he does he is able to FEEL the other person's body, something the Father cannot do because, according to you, he has no physical body. For this undeniable reason, the Fsther can only relate to us spiritually. This means although Jesus is as infinitely perfect as is the Father. he has a definite advantage over the Father because he can directly interact with and perfectly relate to the physical universe; but the Father cannot do the same because he has no physical body. This means Jesus can do things the Father Is unable to do because the Father has no physical body with which to experience the physical realm.

So possessing a physical body most definitely gives Christ an advantage over the Father because he is able to enjoy a wider breadth of experience. Christ can perfectly relate to and interact with the physical AS WELL AS the spiritual universe. Meanwhile, the Father cannot related to and interact with the physical universe in the same way because he has no physical body. Or do you believe the Father can experience all things in the physical realm in precisely the same way the Son can even though he (the Father) has no physical body?

As to your off-point point: How can an intelligent being learn anything if that being already knows everything there is to know?

8 Though he were a Son, yet LEARNED (you cannot learn something you already perfectly know) he obedience by the things which he suffered (in the physical universe);

9 And being MADE perfect (you can't be made into something you already are), he BECAME (you cannot become something you already are) the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Hebrews 5)

 

 

Actually, I responded directly to your whole point. You disagree with my view that "he has known all perspectives of every atom in the Universe past present and future all the time." So you claim that I missed your point. I did not. A being that knows all and experiences all, at the same time, doesn't gain anything by having a body. Neither does Jesus. We gain something, that is all. 

 

So, no we disagree. I understand your point, but there is no advantage to Jesus to having a body over not having one, for a being who experiences every atom all the time at once. 

 

And notice, I am talking about the Divine Jesus, not Jesus the man who learned as man does from a baby. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Word didn't learn or grow. Jesus the baby/man did, of course. 

[danielwoods]

So when the Bible refers to Him as a He the Bible is wrong?

Sola scriptura under the danielwoods anti-Mormon bus AGAIN.

So, is Jesus not God? Is He not a He either? Was He lying when He told the apostles that when they had seen Him they had seen the Father? So the Father is really a Father because when Jesus calls Him a Father He really didn't mean "Father" but rather a sexless parent? If He is a sexless Parent, why didn't Jesus tell us that He was a sexless Parent?

Of course not, there is just something that needs to be thrown under your anti-Mormon bus. Or in this case someone.

So Jesus lied to us? John wasn't really an angel but Jesus lies to us by calling him an angel, but He didn't really mean an "angel" angel but what he meant was an "angel" messenger? Which of course ALL angels ARE "angel" messengers, but danielwoods has decided that there needs to be a separate category angel that doesn't really mean "angel" but only a non-angelic messenger human but this special category angel is only applied when the scriptures are specifically referring to mortal men. And now, using circular logic, we can know that when the scriptures refer to mortal men as "angels" they don't really mean "angel" because we have this special totally fabricated separate category of angels that aren't angels at all but are only messenger mortal humans? And we know this special category of non-angel angels exists because non-angel angels are only referred to as angel when referring to non-angel angels known as mortal humans, but in all other instances "angel" is used it is referring to an angel "angel". And we know this because the word angel is applied to non-mortal humans some of the time. But the other times that it is applied to mortal humans, we know that it doesn't really mean an angel "angel" because the word "angel" is used.

So, now it is obvious, when the word "angel" is used for a messenger from God it is an angel "angel" but when it is used for a mortal human messenger from God it doesn't really mean an angel "angel" but rather a non-angel "angel" and we know this because "angel" is used.

And the logic you use to do it is fallacious.

Nah, you are ignoring what the Bible really says and are using distorted, contorted and tortuous logic to explain it away.

 

Not sure it's worth a reply, because even a first year Greek student would understand that Jesus wasn't calling John an angel in the ontological sense. 

 

I always love it when you claim that I am ignoring what the Bible really says. It's makes me laugh. You are relying on LDS teachings and defend LDS doctrines everyday. I rely on the Bible alone, yet you have the audacity to claim that I'm ignoring what it says. Thanks for the chuckle. 

[danielwoods]

I'm surprised Daniel doesn't seem to understand the Biblical doctrine that Jesus Christ is the perfect revelation of God to man. Meaning that if one wants to know who and what the Father is, and what he looks like, then all one needs to do is look to the Son of God. So why is Jesus a male if the God he perfectly represents is sexless?

I'm especially surprised in light of the fact that Jesus had a heavenly Father who needed a mother named Mary to conceive and give birth to his Son. And who can deny that the whole male/female dynamic is epitomized right here in God the Father's divine fatherhood and I'm Mary"s sacred motherhood. Yet he will deny all this and explain it away. It would be interesting to know if Daniel believes Jesus retained his human male identity in the resurrection? I ask this question because if Christ did retain his male identity, one has to wonder why a sexless God would want a male human being to serve as the perfect revelation of its person and nature?

 

 

"16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer." 2 Cor. 5:16

 

"The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." 1 Samuel 16:7

 

Jesus is the perfect revelation of God to man. But, that certainly isn't talking about his flesh. 

[Bobbieaware]

Actually, I responded directly to your whole point. You disagree with my view that "he has known all perspectives of every atom in the Universe past present and future all the time." So you claim that I missed your point. I did not. A being that knows all and experiences all, at the same time, doesn't gain anything by having a body. Neither does Jesus. We gain something, that is all. 

 

So, no we disagree. I understand your point, but there is no advantage to Jesus to having a body over not having one, for a being who experiences every atom all the time at once. 

 

And notice, I am talking about the Divine Jesus, not Jesus the man who learned as man does from a baby. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Word didn't learn or grow. Jesus the baby/man did, of course.

So are you saying the human Jesus wasn't divine? And if you do believe the human Jesus wasn't divine while he sojourned on the earth, prior to his resurrection, do you still believe the human Jesus isn't divine now that he is in heaven and his spirit and body are inseparably united?

[Bobbieaware]

"16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer." 2 Cor. 5:16

"The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." 1 Samuel 16:7

Jesus is the perfect revelation of God to man. But, that certainly isn't talking about his flesh.

If Jesus is the perfect revelation of God to man, why,does this perfect revelation have a body when God doesn't have a body? And why did God's perfect revelation come to earth as a man when God is neither a male nor a female?

Sounds like a rather imperfect revelation to me.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

So are you saying the human Jesus wasn't divine? And if you do believe the human Jesus wasn't divine while he sojourned on the earth, prior to his resurrection, do you still believe the human Jesus isn't divine now that he is in heaven and his spirit and body are inseparably united?

I believe that Jesus is 100% human, and 100% divinity.

 

When talking about Jesus, scripture uses either or one or both natures to describe him. For example when it talks about him growing and learning from a boy, it's describing his human nature, not his divine nature. 

 

If Jesus is the perfect revelation of God to man, why,does this perfect revelation have a body when God doesn't have a body? And why did God's perfect revelation come to earth as a man when God is neither a male nor a female?

Sounds like a rather imperfect revelation to me.

 

He became one of us to communicate on our level and in our language, we aren't ever required to become something we are not, to reach him or his level, because this is impossible for us. Instead he came down to our level so he could bring us up with him. 

 

If we were ants. He'd have come as an ant and spoke "ant" to us...

 

Why male or female? Because that's who we are. We are male or female. Why male? Well, in our society males are fathers and kings. Jesus coming as a male emulates those concepts of our God and Father. 

 

As the scripture says, we no longer see him as the world sees him, though we once did. 

[Bobbieaware]

"16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer." 2 Cor. 5:16

 

"The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." 1 Samuel 16:7

 

Jesus is the perfect revelation of God to man. But, that certainly isn't talking about his flesh.

Does the expression "no one from a worldly point of view" in the above quote refer to nay Christ, or does it refer to all men as well as Christ. And if it does refer to all mem, as well as Christ, dors that mean men are not to be viewed as men but as beings with a spiritual nature?

As to your last comment: Do you believe that if God had a glorious body, like Christ's spiritual body, that he could no longer be divine?

[Stone holm]

If Jesus is the perfect revelation of God to man, why,does this perfect revelation have a body when God doesn't have a body? And why did God's perfect revelation come to earth as a man when God is neither a male nor a female?

Sounds like a rather imperfect revelation to me.

You do realize that you are posting to an audience which is predominantly Mormon, and therefore believe that God (Heavenly Father/Eloheim) does have a physical body and does have a gender.

[danielwoods]

Does the expression "no one from a worldly point of view" in the above quote refer to nay Christ, or does it refer to all men as well as Christ. And if it does refer to all mem, as well as Christ, dors that mean men are not to be viewed as men but as beings with a spiritual nature?

As to your last comment: Do you believe that if God had a glorious body, like Christ's spiritual body, that he could no longer be divine?

 

The context of 2 Cor. 5 is about our spiritual condition. As he says, "11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God..." So we as believers, don't look at people as other people do. We view people as God would, with regard to their spiritual condition, not based on outward appearances. 

 

"If God had a body....?"  No. It wouldn't affect his divinity anymore than it affects Christ's. In fact, in his omniscience, he already has that experience. 

Edited September 2, 2015 by danielwoods

[Bobbieaware]

You do realize that you are posting to an audience which is predominantly Mormon, and therefore believe that God (Heavenly Father/Eloheim) does have a physical body and does have a gender.

Daniel (a non- member who be.believes Gof is immaterial) and I are having a discussion,

[Bobbieaware]

The context of 2 Cor. 5 is about our spiritual condition. As he says, "11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God..." So we as believers, don't look at people as other people do. We view people as God would, with regard to their spiritual condition, not based on outward appearances.

"If God had a body....?" No. It wouldn't affect his divinity anymore than it affects Christ's. In fact, in his omniscience, he already has that experience.

If God is omniscient. and knows all things from the beginning, did he know Adam an Eve would fall and that he (the one God) would therefore have to take upon himself a physical body after spendimg all of the previous eternity without a physical body?

If God is omniscient, and knows all things from the beginning , do you believe he knew he would one day take upon himself a physical body after doing just fine without one for all of the previous eternity?

Knowing God is perfectly good, omniscient and perfectly loving, what good do you believe he thought would be accomplish by creating beings with physical bodies?

Do you believe planet earth is the only place in all of eternity where beings with physical bodies exist?

Edited September 2, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

If God is omniscient. and knows all things from the beginning, did he know Adam an Eve would fall and that he (the one God) would therefore have to take upon himself a physical body after spendimg all of the previous eternity without a physical body?

Yes and yes. 

 

If God is omniscient, and knows all things from the beginning , do you believe he knew he would one day take upon himself a physical body after doing just fine without one for all of the previous eternity?

Yes

 

Knowing God is perfectly good, omniscient and perfectly loving, what good do you believe he thought would be accomplish by creating beings with physical bodies?

Not sure. We are both spirit and body. There are many possibilities, he choose this one. It's interesting to speculate, but what remains is we are how he intended us to be.  

 

Do you believe planet earth is the only place in all of eternity where beings with physical bodies exist?

Well, yes and no. Meaning, a resurrected/spiritual body is still a body right? So, there certainly is some sort of physicality in other realms like Heaven. 

[Vance]

I always love it when you claim that I am ignoring what the Bible really says. It's makes me laugh. You are relying on LDS teachings and defend LDS doctrines everyday. I rely on the Bible alone, yet you have the audacity to claim that I'm ignoring what it says. Thanks for the chuckle.

I always love it when you claim that I don't believe what the Bible really says. It makes me laugh. You are relying on non-Biblical teachings and defend non-Biblical doctrines everyday. I rely on the Spirit of revelation, yet you have the audacity to claim that I'm ignoring what the source of the Bible says. Thanks for the chuckle.

[Vance]

Jesus is the perfect revelation of God to man. But, that certainly isn't talking about his flesh.

Well, of course not. Because, well, no good reason other than it would require danielwoods to teardown his theological house of cards and rebuild from scratch.

See, this is another example where we are to take the word of danielwoods over the plain and simple words of Jesus.