Here's the funny thing about "spirits" in the New Testament. Some translations say "God is a Spirit," while others say, "God is Spirit." The thing is, that word "a" doesn't exist in Greek. Anytime it says "a spirit" in the NT I could translate it as just "spirit," and there's not a linguist in the world that could tell me I was wrong. So, that very same book of John says that anything born OF the Spirit IS spirit (or a spirit, depending on what side of the bed you woke up on). If we can be born of the spirit, then we can be spirits, and we can have flesh and blood. Again, there is a dualistic eaning to almost all the important words in the Bible. I'm not contradicting myself. Now, look through your whole Bible and jot down all the times the phrase "flesh and blood" appears, then go do the same for "flesh and bones." You'll find that flesh and bones are always mentioned with a perfected being (such as a resurrected being). Flesh and blood mean humans. Blood does not run through our veins after the resurrection, but spirit does. "Quickened by the spirit," I believe the scripture states. Blood brings us life, but it is mortal life. Christ was resurrected with a body of flesh and bones. God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. We will ALL be resurrected with a body of flesh and bones. Any other interpretations are just rationalizations in an effort to squeeze the scriptures into a pre-conceived doctrine. Like Jesus would lie to his disciples. "Look I have flesh and bones. Sike!" The trinity is easy to understand if you don't think of the trinity in a Catholic way. Think of it as the Godhead. Elohim is plural (no it does not refer to the plurality of his majesties and powers), and there are three members in the Godhead. Each is a seperate and distinct individual; the Father and Son possess bodies, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit. They are united in perfection and will. They are all perfect, so they all make the same perfect decisions and think the same perfect thoughts, so they can be called "one." That is why Christ prayed that we all become one even as they are one (united in purpose, deed and will). Think of the Colorado Avalanche. How many are they? Well, they're one team, but they're made up of many different people. The Godhead is the same; one entity moving towards one goal, but seperate individuals compromising the whole.
The resurrection of the flesh of Jesus Christ
by hooberus 58 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
hooberus
God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. We will ALL be resurrected with a body of flesh and bones. Any other interpretations are just rationalizations in an effort to squeeze the scriptures into a pre-conceived doctrine. Like Jesus would lie to his disciples. "Look I have flesh and bones. Sike!" The trinity is easy to understand if you don't think of the trinity in a Catholic way. Think of it as the Godhead. Elohim is plural (no it does not refer to the plurality of his majesties and powers), and there are three members in the Godhead. Each is a seperate and distinct individual; the Father and Son possess bodies, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit. They are united in perfection and will. They are all perfect, so they all make the same perfect decisions and think the same perfect thoughts, so they can be called "one." That is why Christ prayed that we all become one even as they are one (united in purpose, deed and will). Think of the Colorado Avalanche. How many are they? Well, they're one team, but they're made up of many different people. The Godhead is the same; one entity moving towards one goal, but seperate individuals compromising the whole.
dan, Joseph Smith was wrong about God. Even his own earlier writings contradicted the above points (which he later taught, and are accepted today by the LDS).
No true prophet of God would teach such things which are contradictory to the Scriptures.
-
dan
Where did his writings contradict that doctrine? Cite stuff before you make accusations. If you have some ridiculous tract explaining that all the Mormons are going to hell then say that; but if you are just making assumptions and inferences, keep them to yourself. As for God having a body, show me a scripture that says He doesn't have a body, and I'll show you where it says He does.
-
hooberus
Earlier Teaching
1835 D&C Lecture 5th of Faith Section 5 p. 53
"They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man - or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image."
Later Teaching
1843 D&C Section 130:22
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man?s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."
Note: according to Smith "a personage of spirit" does not have "a body of flesh and bones." For example "the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit." Therfore Smiths earlier teaching that "The Father being a personage of spirit, . . . " would seem to exclude the Father from having a body of flesh and bones.
-
Deputy Dog
Dan
Is this kind thinking mormon, or just yours?
As for God having a body, show me a scripture that says He doesn't have a body, and I'll show you where it says He does.
With that kind of thinking, you can say God is a chicken. Show me in the bible where it say he's not and I'll show show you where it says he is:Psa 17:8
Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings, D Dog -
-
dan
Hooberus - What does the very next paragraph from the Lectures on Faith say? This does look rather incriminating, but Joseph Smith has taught from the very beginning that God the Father has a body. When he wrote that he was a "personage of spirit" he didn't intend for anyone to interpret that He had no body. Many years later he started using "personage of spirit" to denote a bodiless state, and that's when he made the clarification with the Holy Spirit. I don't expect anyone to accept my explanation, but nothing on or off this earth could convince you that you're wrong anyway; you've already made your decision and you're just going to filter out the evidence that doesn't agree with your idea. That's a common fallacy that dogmatic people fall into. I realize that you're going to say I'm the same way, so save it; and I could point out contradictions in the Bible all day long, but that's not going to change how you think about it. Argumentum ad hominem is pretty useless, although it seems to be the recourse most often utilized by politicians and Christians.
"It must be said - though I say it with the deepest sorrow - that the cold exclusiveness of the Pharisee, the bitter ignorance of the self-styled theologian, the usurped infallibility of the half-educated religionist, have ever been the curse of Christianity. They have imposed the senses of men upon the words of God; the special sense of men on the general words of God; and have tried to enforce them on all men's consciences with all kinds of burnings and anathemas under equal threates of death and damnation. And thus they incurred the terrible responsibility of presenting religion to mankind in a false and repellent guise. Is theological hatred still to be a proverb for the world's just contempt? Is such hatred - hatred in its most base and ruthless form - to be regarded as the legitimate outcome of the religion of love? Is the spirit of peace never to be brought to bear on religious opinions? Are such questions always to incite the most intense animosities, the most terrible divisions? Is the world to be forever confirmed in its opinion that the theological partisans are less truthfull, less candid, less high-minded, less honorable even than the partisans of political and social causes, who make no profession as to the duty of love? Are the so-called 'religious champions' to be forever as they are now, the most unscrupulously bitter, the most conspicuously unfair? Alas! They might be so with far less danger to the cause of religion if they would forego the luxury of 'quoting scripture' for their purpose."
- Canon Farrar
I was under the impression that this forum was for repectable debate, but when someone asserts a belief that is unorthodox in the eyes of others, they get attacked. I assert my beliefs without specifically telling anyone else they're wrong. I believe that is respect; but I get nothing in return except for people telling me they think they know more about my religion than I do. I know more about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than anyone in this forum. The automatic response will be another ad hominem answer: "Oh, you're real humble, aren't you!?!" Well, I invite anyone who wants to to prove me wrong. I will answer any doubts based only on the knowledge I already have in my head, but I invite you to go study whatever sources you have access to if you think you can stump me.
deputy dog - your argument does just as much to disprove your argument as it does to disprove my argument. If you want to assert that you know the nature of God you're gonna have to toss that reasoning out. And I don't lean solely on scripture for my understanding. A prophet of the Lord has revealed the true nature of God. That is the pattern throughout the Bible, but few people actually believe in what the Bible preaches.
-
Deputy Dog
Dan
I know more about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than anyone in this forum.
You say "I Know". How do "you" know?
deputy dog - your argument does just as much to disprove your argument as it does to disprove my argument. If you want to assert that you know the nature of God you're gonna have to toss that reasoning out.
My point is that you can't find a verse in the bible that states that God is a man and has a body, any more than you can say that he is a bird with feathers!
And I don't lean solely on scripture for my understanding.
I don't think you lean on the bible at all for "your" understanding. D Dog
-
hooberus
I was under the impression that this forum was for repectable debate, but when someone asserts a belief that is unorthodox in the eyes of others, they get attacked. I assert my beliefs without specifically telling anyone else they're wrong.
Stating that someone is wrong on a doctrinal issue is not the same as a personal attack. It is not incorrect to oppose wrong actions or doctrines:
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Galatians 2:11
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16
It is not persecution for me to point out th fact that JWs are wrong about the resurrection of the flesh of Jesus Christ, likewise it is not persecution for me to point out errors in the teaching of the LDS church. I will point these errors out by the scriptures.
If you like dan we can have a discussion of the scripturalness of the LDS teaching that the Father is a resurrected man with a body of flesh and bones, but please do not attempt to present those who disagree with you here as being closed minded or motivated by "hatred."
-
dan
deputy dog, if you think you can prove me wrong you are welcome to try.
Which is exactly my point. You can't find a scripture that says he does NOT have a body any more than you can find one that says he is a bird with feathers.
You're right in that my understanding is not chained down to 1590 pages of scripture. No people in the Bible ever survived spiritually solely on ancient scripture, and I don't see any reason to start now; and if you'd like to test my understanding of the scriptures you are more than welcome.
OK Hooberus, use the scriptures to make your points and I'll answer with scripture. You can go first.