The January 2014 Ensign magazine includes an edited version of a General Conference talk given in 1986 by (now deceased) Gordon B. Hinckley of Mormonism’s First Presidency. The 2014 “Gospel Classic” is titled, “The Divine Godhead.” In it Mr. Hinckley explains what he believes about God the Father and relates an experience he had while a missionary in England:
“I believe without equivocation or reservation in God, the Eternal Father. He is my Father, the Father of my spirit, and the Father of the spirits of all men. He is the great Creator, the Ruler of the Universe. … In His image man was created. He is personal. He is real. He is individual. He has ‘a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s’ (D&C 130:22).
“In the account of the creation of the earth, ‘God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Genesis 1:26).
“Could any language be more explicit? Does it demean God, as some would have us believe, that man was created in His express image? Rather, it should stir within the heart of every man and woman a greater appreciation for himself or herself as a son or daughter of God. …
“… As a missionary, I was speaking [in London, England, when a heckler interrupted], ‘Why don’t you stay with the doctrine of the Bible which says in John (4:24), “God is a Spirit”?’
“I opened my Bible to the verse he had quoted and read to him the entire verse: ‘God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.’
Speakers’ Corner, Hyde Park in 1944 (Roberts, 1995)
© 1995 Charles C. Roberts, Jr.
“I said, ‘Of course God is a spirit, and so are you, in the combination of spirit and body that makes of you a living being, and so am I.’
“Each of us is a dual being of spiritual entity and physical entity. All know of the reality of death … , and each of us also knows that the spirit lives on as an individual entity and that at some time, under the divine plan made possible by the sacrifice of the Son of God, there will be a reunion of spirit and body. Jesus’s declaration that God is a spirit no more denies that He has a body than does the statement that I am a spirit while also having a body.” (Ensign, 1/2014, 72; ellipses and brackets retained from the original)
When Jesus says “God is spirit” (John 4:24), aren’t His words just as explicit as the statement quoted by Mr. Hinckley (Genesis 1:26; also see verse 27)? No one need be confused about what “God is spirit” means in connection to Mormonism’s assertion that God the Father has “a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s,” for Jesus, in another time and place, explained, “a spirit does not have flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39). Mr. Hinckley’s argument that God the Father has a spirit (coupled with a body of flesh and bones) imposes much onto the words of the apostle John that is not there – or anywhere in the Bible.
Likewise, Mr. Hinckley’s treatment of Genesis 1:26 misses the mark. Mr. Hinckley suggests that man being made in the image and likeness of God the Father can only mean that God the Father is a tangible being of flesh and bones. This is not so. Christian author Dr. Jim W. Adams explains:
“Humanity is distinguished from all other creatures by the fact that it is created in the image (tselem) and in the likeness (demut) of God (Gen 1:26). What exactly the term tselem means in relation to humanity has been the source of scholarly debate. But careful analysis of the various occurrences of the noun throughout the Old Testament leads to the conclusion that a tselem ‘represents’ something. Hence, the most natural understanding of humankind created in the image of God is that human beings are God’s image or representative on earth. This is confirmed by God’s command for humanity to rule over God’s creation on his behalf (v. 28; see also Ps 8:5-8)…
“The term tselem, however, also indicates that to some degree human beings are like God and resemble him. This is enhanced by the use of the similar noun demut (Gen 1:26a; 5:1), which tends to convey the idea of two objects corresponding to one another (see, e.g., 2 Chr 4:3; Ps 58:4). Still, the text never indicates how humankind is like God. An obvious correspondence between God and humankind would include that both speak, hear, see, and feel. However, what is certain is that humanity does not resemble God in nature or in bodily form, for in the Old Testament God is never presented as an embodied being or even a physical being. Furthermore, the Old Testament assumes throughout that human beings do not have the divine nature of God: God creates, but human beings cannot create in the same sense; God is the sole Creator, but humans are creatures; humans die, but God is immortal.” (“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph Smith?”, The New Mormon Challenge, Beckwith, Mosser, Owen, general editors, 172, 173)
I think Gordon B. Hinckley’s “heckler” at Hyde Park asked a good question those many years ago: Why doesn’t Mormonism stay with the doctrine of the Bible? Like Joshua entreated the people of ancient Israel, so we too beseech you, Mormons: “Then put away the foreign gods that are among you, and incline your heart to the Lord, the God of Israel” (Joshua 24:23). He, the only true God, can be found in the pages of the Bible, explicitly revealed to all who seek to know Him – to all who seek to worship Him in spirit and in truth.
FoF:
I argue that you utilize these passages to support the premise that God has a physical body. I don’t know if you argue that these passages prove it, but I do believe that you use these to open the possibility up. If I stated that you use these passages to prove it, I can admit if I over stated the point.
However, I do think it is clear you use these to support the premise, which is precisely why I call your position a guess. Anything you can use to justify a doctrine, you will use. And, yes, I want you to make a strong argument– conclusive, even– that God has a physical body. Prove it. You’re a smart guy.
I read some on the anthropomorphic issue yesterday. I found that most scholars do not agree with you, even as you claim “most scholars” believe the early Jews had a body. I don’t think that is true. It may have been popular in the 19th century, but trends are moving away from it, as we get more evidence about what the Jews did and practiced, and a better understanding of language.
It is interesting to note your appeal to scholars again. At least this time you actually provided some articles.
MJP- the New Testament passages ya’ll cite do not provide good textual evidence that the LDS view of God is wrong. Sharon’s article claimed otherwise. I am not real sure why you need to point out that I am making an argument that allows our doctrine to be valid and true. I think I am well justified to do so. Are you completely ignoring your own religious beliefs in your arguments? Not even. Not sure why I should be expected to do so while nobody here does either.
My argument is not a “guess.” The belief in a anthropomorphic God goes way back in Judaism and early Christian belief. And the text of the Bible does not contradict my belief at all. In fact, it supports my belief more than the belief in a God without physical form, in my opinion.
The demand that I prove that God has a physical body is just plain crazy. It is no different than me demanding that God has no physical body. I can show evidence supportive of my view from the Bible and from scholarship relating to early Jewish and Christian belief. But proving that God has a physical body is impossible at this time.
I think you meant to say that scholars believe ancient Jews believed God had a physical body (not that scholars agree that Jews had bodies)? Anyway, I very much maintain that scholarship leading in the direction of supporting the claim that ancient Jews and early Christians believed God had a physical body. It is absolutely not moving in the other direction. You will always be able to find Christian scholars who support your view. But that in no way constitutes a representation of mainstream scholarship on the topic (or any other).
Can you provide evidence that scholarship is moving away from my position? I don’t think so.
Dragoş Giulea is a Christian Scholar. And this work in no way proves that ” the early Jewish religion as well as early Christian religion (1st and early 2nd centuries) subscribed to an anthropomorphic God.” What kind of anthropomorphism is Giulea subscribing to the Jews? Allegorical? Literal? Notice that FOF doesn’t quote him. WHY? Because once again, FOF is being dishonest.
And the paper by Shamma Friedman, is based on interpreting the READING of the Bible by Augustine and others (even Christ) as “allegorical”. Hardly proof that it was believed by any of them. This again, is nothing new. Notice that FOF provides us with no quotes to back up his assertions. FOF thinks he can just throw out names and papers and that no one will actually READ THEM. Another deception by him, folks, to misrepresent his lies.
For example, Maimonides did not believe in an anthropomorphic God:
This kind of “textual exegesis and interpretation” is made on both sides of the argument and shows that FOF is simply wrong.
Unfotunately, FOF gives us only scholarly interpretation, which is NOT universal, in fact it is far from it:
You have to go to later Jewish writings to see the debate over this. That there IS a debate over it, shows that FOF is only providing a one sided view. Once again, FOF does not tell the whole story here. He can hardly say that his position is fact. But that is how he portrays it. Once again, we see his blatant dishonesty at work here folks.
We here, have been down this road that Carl Griffin and David Paulsen speculate about. FOF does not provide ANY QUOTES by Augustine. Telling. I have, in previous posts, which show that this is a false notion, gotten up by modern scholars who are SPECULATING.. FOF NEEDS to believe this, folks, and will try any act of deception to TRY and prove it. But he can’t.
Notice again, that all FOF does is give his opinion but does not quote anyone. He doesn’t want anyone to see that all his arguments are based on SPECULATION. This has been his deceptive tactic all along, and shows a grievous level of dishonesty and deception that all Mormon Apologists have to stoop to, to make their lame points. The TRUTH IS,
Right or wrong, SOME SCHOLARS BELIEVE AND PROVIDE SPECULATION THAT the early Jewish religion as well as early Christian religion (1st and early 2nd centuries) subscribed to an anthropomorphic God with a physical form after which man was fashioned
FOF says,
NO PROOF AT ALL to back this up folks. Once again, FOF simply lies here. Notice that he can’t PROVE THIS. He NEVER DOES. The last time we had this discussion FOF left the conversation because he could not rebut my proof that he was wrong.
A few quotes from the ECF’s to contemplate…
And,
Spoken like a true backpedaler. Of course, this disqualifies ANYTHING that FOF says about this topic. Thanks, FOF, for making this clear. We, on the other hand have PROVED from the Bible that GOD the Father IS a SPIRIT and WAS NEVER SEEN by man, and that he is an INVISIBLE GOD because he does not have a body. He is described in anthropomorphic terms ONLY as a literary device. No image of the Jewish God has ever been found. Why? Because they knew they could not make any image of an invisible God that had never been seen and certainly WAS NOT a MAN, as FOF believes and Mormonism teaches.
FOF promised to give us evidence to back this up. He didn’t. He threw out a few book titles and gave his “opinion”. Once again, we see that this is all he can offer. No quotes, no definitive scholarly scriptural analysis with verses to back it up… NOTHING. Why? Because as FOF says…
“proving that God has a physical body is impossible”
Notice also, that FOF won’t explain why his own “prophets” taught that the Father was a Spirit without a body, that it was binding scripture, that Jo changed the Bible to say that the Father and Jesus were the same being, and that they affirmed the doctrine of the TRINITY in an early Mormon publication.
FOF can’t answer these kinds of things. He can’t explain the blatant contradictions found in Mormonism. He is only here to give false statements and opinions that aren’t backed up by any facts.
As soon as you provide us with detailed quotes to back yours up. Get cracking. You have a lot of quoting to do. But then, you know you can’t back this up. A list of 50 scholars should do it, with quotes. Thanks.
Grindael beat me to it, but yes, FoF, you are back pedaling. You cannot prove it because your argument is false, which means it is impossible.
We are happy to discuss where we get our idea that God has no bodilly form apart from Jesus’ earthly life. We have done so.
All you have done is say that Sharon’s article does not prove her point. We can argue about the finality of her argument, but what is clear is that it goes leagues further than you to prove that God has no body.
You’ve continually said you come here to offer an alternate point of view and other such purposes, but giving a conclusion without anything to back it up is acting nothing more than a troll. And I hate calling people trolls, but I have to admit, your statements amount to trolling.
As Grindael suggested, and I challenged, offer an argument– prove your point. Do more than list a few articles without describing them in greater detail, including quoting them, and say that you could make an argument that A is B because…. We CAN all make an argument, but you have not made one.
This is non-sequitur. Why? Because if you have not interest in proving anything, you can’t prove that Sharon’s arguments are flawed. You need PROOF to do that. You see what FOF’s game is here, folks? To call Sharon’s arguments flawed, but offer no proof that they are.
What proofs does FOF ever offer? Only his opinion. But is a bag of wind proof of anything, except that FOF can produce one? We have lots of people here, who give detailed evidence to show that Sharon’s arguments are sound and historically accurate. And what does FOF do? Says he doesn’t LIKE them and labels them with long strings of misnomers.
Since FOF started posting on this Blog, he has continued to claim that everyone is biased and (pick expletive) if they criticize the Mormon Church for any reason regardless of the evidence to the contrary. But what is interesting, is that FOF has ratcheted that up more and more frequently since he reappeared here… Why is this, unless he has nothing else really, to say? Unless he is only here to troll? Here are some example of his older comments where he does this.
Now, there are lots of polite comments that FOF gave back then, (though very short on any kind of evidence except standard Mormon “apologist” arguments, especially with BOM “evidence”). FOF Took a break for four years and then started commenting again…
Notice how FOF has to portray us as claiming HE is biased, when he admits that he is already.
Here, he has to use the word TWICE in one sentence!
Here is what I said about this way back in September, 2013:
FOF made this comment in 2008, but what we see now, is nothing like what he portrayed back then:
Shortly before he left in 2009 FOF made this interesting comment…
I think he had the right idea back then. He wasn’t disgruntled… and saw that he wasn’t doing anyone any good. So he left. Why he has come back is anyone’s guess. He is obviously conflicted about that. Personally, I just think that he is angry that he doesn’t have any kind of impact on anyone, and that his own personal views about Mormonism aren’t taken seriously at all because they are not based in reality. Notice all the subjective accusations that FOF makes in just the posts above:
This folks, is only from 18 posts. Instead of offering good honest dialogue and research, with evidence to back up his claims, FOF has only returned here to slander everyone with disgruntled negativity. Of course, to FOF anyone who does offer proof, is providing only “out of context” quotes, (of which he NEVER reveals HOW they are out of context), bad opinion, bad analysis, and has a hidden agenda of hate and bias, all of which he does not support with any evidence at all. Only his opinion that we do this.
Today, I’m putting FOF on notice. No more trolling. Either back up what you say with documented evidence (quotes and detailed analysis) or your comments will be trashed. No more opinions. If you can provide good, honest criticism, fine. But it has to be based on something besides your opinion and misnomers.
MJP said,
Grindael beat me to it, but yes, FoF, you are back pedaling.
I say,
Not only is he pedaling but he is once again falling back on his tired old “Scholars say” dodge.
Notice however how he has no interest in what scholars say about the interpretation of the Greek in John 4. When it suites him FOFs is perfectly willing to reject all scholarship and hitch his wagon to a obscure forced reading of the text that totally ignores the context.
Once again FOF if you have evidence that the Jews ever believed that God the father had physical body present it and stop with the appeal to authority nonsense.
Ancient Jewish texts are all freely available on the internet you should be able to quote chapter and verse if they reveal a belief in a anthropomorphic god.
Skeptical scholars don’t have access to anything that is private or secret. All they have is a naturalistic presupposition that demands we believe that Jews be like the nations around them because God surely could not have revealed himself to them.
The fact is the same skeptical Scholars that you love to listen to when it comes to the OT would laugh him you of the room if he were to suggest that the book of Mormon was anything but a poor piece of 19th century fiction.
So if you are unwilling to listen to them why should anyone else care what they have to say?
peace
grindael, thanks for balancing out this issue against Fof F’s behavior . His attempt to put a
good face on Hinckely’s spin of Jn 4:24 to defend the Mormon belief that God the Father is
none other than a rank and file human male from another planet , now ” exalted” , was truly
anemic . Why do Mormons even try to convince people that this doctrine is what the apostles
taught about God the Father ? It never came from the Bible , it was ” new light ” by a man
claiming to be a prophet , his alleged modern day revelation Jesus allegedly authorized him
to reveal . But this is what latter days false prophets do , they have the Bible but view it being
by dead prophet so they proceed to make a place for themselves as God’s ” living prophet” by
supplementing Jesus’ apostles teachings with new ones . This is’nt surprising because Jesus
and Paul warned us to expect it in the latter days —Mk 13:22-23 ; 2 Tim 4:3,4 .
I think the reason why Mormons like Fof F would rather confine the conversation to what
scholars have written is because it affords a needed diversion from whom we look at for
accurate and reliable teaching about what the Bible teaches about God , namely Mormon
leaders . They are the ones who claim to hear from God to introduce correct doctrine to their
flock and to the world , so we hold them to that promise . Scholars are one thing , but Mormon
leadership is quite another , and even highly trained BYU professors understand that
arrangement .
People need to know what’s going on here , they need to see what Mormon leaders have been
up to . A brief example :
Mormon leadership taught and sent missionaries out to teach the gospel , the truth about God
and the salvation message . For years they took the Bible and Book of Mormon and taught about
God . There was one God , and concerning God the Father He was always God , not some
human male who had to learn to become Almighty God etc. Hundreds of Missionaries taught
these simple truths for years and converted people to their church . Then something happened ,
a departure from this gospel truth took place . Now God the Father was a human male and was
never God in the first place , He was even brought into existence as a person and taught to
eventually be smart enough and strong enough to become God and be able to say , ” Let there be
light ” by a higher Deity one with more dominion than He !
Now in order to sell this new doctrine the Bible must be used , that will greatly aid in convincing
people that the Bible’s prophets/apostles were really no different than Mormons prophets.
Sadly this tactic works all to often .
What else have Mormon leaders done to exploit the Bible after a new doctrine is introduced by
them ?
– After Mormon leaders made their practice of polygamy public and claimed it to be a essential
church ordinance in Jesus’ church , they resorted to selling their new behavior by using the
Bible to prove it was ok . New Testament scriptures were cited by Mormon leaders , and of
course Jesus was used as their example to follow , He was a polygamist ! Some Mormon apostles
did’nt stop there in their gospel preaching because they didnt hestitate to testify that God the
Father was also a polygamist .
– After Mormon leaders introduced their new doctrine about Negroes being denied the full
blessings of Jesus’ gospel , and that Mormon males were forbidden to marry black women
these leaders did the predictable —they used the Bible to justify this new doctrine . They even
taught that God the Father had white skin , and used New Testament scripture to prove it !
This is a example of how the latter days prophets of Mormonism have exploited the Bible ,
especially the New Testament in an effort to prove their new doctrines are from Jesus .
They have simply done the same thing AFTER they chose to introduce yet another new
doctrine , namely , that God the Father is a man .
God the Father is not a man .He never had to learn how to become God . He is so much more
unique and Majestic than that .
The Mormon people have been short changed , detoured, by false prophets of the latter days —
Matt 24:11
grindael,
You just cannot understand text. I said, “Most scholars today believe the ancient Jews believed in an anthropomorphic God. That belief changed significantly in the medieval period, largely the result of a few pivotal rabbis like Maimonides, who sought to change the belief among the Jewish people into one engaging more modern philosophical ideas.”
A person should understand from that statement that the Jewish people believed in an anthropomorphic God long ago. That belief changed as a result of, among others, Maimonides, a rabbi in the medieval period. In other words, Maimonides was a rabbi who argued against and anthropomorphic God and thus changed the common belief among the Jewish people. Why in the world would you expect Maimonides to maintain an anthropomorphic view of God from my statement? The exact opposite was my point.
Go back and read my posts. You really struggle with comprehension, but that is OK.
FOF said:
Most scholars today believe the ancient Jews believed in an anthropomorphic God. That belief changed significantly in the medieval period, largely the result of a few pivotal rabbis like Maimonides
The Bible long before Maimonides said:
God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
(Num 23:19a)
and
And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.”
(1Sa 15:29)
and
To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?
(Isa 40:18)
and
To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
(Isa 40:25)
and
There is none like you, O LORD; you are great, and your name is great in might.
(Jer 10:6)
and
remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
(Isa 46:9)
and
“To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike?
(Isa 46:5)
and
The Egyptians are man, and not God, and their horses are flesh, and not spirit.
(Isa 31:3a)
and
for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath. (Hos 11:9)
and
Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?
(Psa 139:7)
and
Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD.
(Jer 23:24b)
etc etc etc
I could go on and on but surely you get the point.
The skeptical scholars you speak of start from a position that denies the possibility that the Bible could present a unified concept of God so they must assume that OT Christophanies are anthropomorphic contradictions that slipped past the morons that compiled the books and the idiot scribes who preserved the text.
I’m sorry but I find such “scholarship” to be a little sloppy to say the least.
peace
I understand perfectly. YOU can’t make up your mind what you want to say, and that is not MY problem. AFTER you made that comment (that you quoted above) you said this:
So THAT is your CONCLUSION. I CAN read text. It is YOU, who forgot what he wrote, I guess, and it’s NOT OK, because you KEEP DOING IT. It’s your MO. You flip flop worse than Mitt Romney.
You said,
Wrong. I showed you from the Bible and by way of the ECF’s and Jewish teachings. But you doubled down,
These are definitive assertions, that are simply too broad and vague among other things. You portray this as a FACT, when you yourself said you could not prove it. You see how schizophrenic you are?
This is BS. SCHOLARS SPECULATE this. You can say that SOME did, but you don’t DEFINE what they believed in. What kind of God? What parts did he have? What was he like EXACTLY? Where is your PROOF, FOF? Nowhere to be found. You can say this over and over, but man, GIVE US SOME QUOTES OR SHUT THE HELL UP.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. I never said that Maimonides maintained an anthropomorphic view of God. I quoted him to show that his argument was based on (as is the one you champion) “a fair amount of textual exegesis [and interpretation].” And this would be of the Rabbinical Texts. The Bible is clear about the Father being invisible and never seen.
You must be on drugs. Maimonidies did not change the common belief among the Jews, his arguments reinforced the view and made it more stringent. If there was such an opposition, it sure died out quickly. You are the one who doesn’t understand, and that is why I called you on this. My point is that Augustine and Maimonides were carrying on TRADITION and Biblical Text, and that the majority did not disagree with them, though there were some that did, and Friedman only references one. Friedman also uses alternative texts (favorable to his argument) from the Babylonian Talumd to make his points. For example, one text he uses reads,
Yet, another reads,
In a footnote, Friedman make a note of this. This is one example, and I can give more. What have you given us, FOF? My point is, NONE OF THIS is certain. They can’t even tell which text is corrupted and which isn’t, and ultimately, these texts are opinions, and lots of people have them. You declaring this to be the orthodox belief of all ancient Jews, is ridiculous.
The paper by Friedman (that you obviously NEVER READ) was all about this, but supplied no compelling evidence that can overturn tradition, only speculation and quotes like those from the Shi’ur Qomah, which has a very sketchy provenance, to say the least. The evidence that the Ancient Jews believed in a corporeal God and that this was the orthodox belief is very shaky.
Please list for us, FOF all of the EVIDENCE that Friedman gives to PROVE that the ancient Jews believed in a corporeal God like the Mormons today, since Mormonism is a supposed “restoration” of ancient beliefs. Lay it all out for us. Take the time to give us one definitive post that has references and quotes and something besides FOF speculation.
I don’t think you will, because there isn’t any that can’t be EASILY contested. In this analysis to Maimonides work THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED, it says,
Saadiah Gaon lived around 800 A.D. He taught that God was
This shows that you don’t know what you are talking about. And this is only ONE example. But this was the MODEL for Jewish thought. That is why he is revered as such a great Rabbi. You are ascribing VERY LATE, modern speculation into what you say. It is obvious that you haven’t studied this period, and know little about Jewish beliefs and thinking during the Geonim. The other problem that you have is that the Jewish definition of God’s Corporeality was nothing like what Mormonism teaches, and the texts are all over the map. Some of the texts used by Friedman describe God’s physical body in great detail but leave out any private parts. How can that god be a Mormon god? He can’t.
Please provide me with references and quotes to prove that I’m wrong. Quotes by Rabbi’s of the period before Saadiah, please. Use any midrash, anything from the Tanakh, the Talmud, anything you can.
grindael,
I haven’t the faintest idea why the folks here place so much weight on what you present. I cannot remember one quotation which you presented accurately.
The paper by Friedman- here a just a couple of quotations from the BEGINNING of his paper that you argue only supports the idea that anthropomorphism was NOT the traditional Jewish belief:
The very first paragraph in his paper reads:
“Loyal to the simple meaning of Scripture, rabbinic Judaism as recorded in the talmudic-midrashic corpus presented God anthropomorphically,in visual terms. When Adam was created, the angels were unable todistinguish him from his Creator (Genesis Rabba 8). Commenting on Deuteronomy 21:22–23 (‘If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, for an impaled body is an affront to God’) R. Meir offered a twinship parable: one twin is King and the other a criminal. When the criminal was crucified for his crimes, and so displayed publicly, the people mistakenly took him for his twin and proclaimed: ‘The king is crucified!’ (Tosefta Sanhedrin 9, 7).Likewise Scripture forbade exposing the body of a person executed fora crime because the human body is the likeness of the Creator.”
Very clearly, Friedman is saying that the rabbinical literature traditionally subscribed to an anthropomorphic God.
More from the introduction of his paper (third paragraph):
“The first part of the paper is devoted to Maimonides’ struggle against traditional anthropomorphic concepts, in comparison to Augustine’s work in the same area.”
“Not only the literal meaning, but even the plain and simple meaning of Scripture and of the talmudic-midrashic corpus represent God as bearing the form in which He had created man (Weinfeld, Creator,125, n. 100) and an overwhelming percentage of Jewish intelligentsia
in Maimonides’ time certainly subscribed to this concept.”
“Portraying God as a formless being entered Jewish conceptualization only where Judaism intersected with Greek thought, viz., Philo, Saadia Gaon, and Maimonides. Traditional talmudic culture never abandoned the indigenous Jewish concepts, and in fact these were still vigorously championed shortly after Maimonides time by Moses Takau.”
You really, absolutely, hopelessly cannot engage texts and misinterpret almost every quotation you use in your arguments.
You even think I was claiming that Augustine believed in an anthropomorphic God. I was saying that Augustine was a key figure in changing the beliefs of Christians away from anthropomorphism to an incorporeal God. He played the same role in Christianity that Maimonides did among the Jews- leading his people toward a non-traditional view of the nature of God.
Dude- it is really hard to engage a topic with you when all you really rely upon are quotations that are always taken out of context and misunderstood by you.
One of the links you provide to the analysis of “The Guide for the Perplexed” doesn’t even indicate who wrote the analysis. Do you even know who wrote that?
FOF said,
Very clearly, Friedman is saying that the rabbinical literature traditionally subscribed to an anthropomorphic God.
I say,
I haven’t read the paper but the quote you pasted does not seem to say that. I read it to say that the rabbies at times uses anthropomorphic terms to describe God. No one is disputing that fact.
Just because the rabbanim used terms like that in no way implies that they ” subscribed to an anthropomorphic God”.
The Bible at times uses anthropomorphic imagery just like it at times speaks of God using animal imagery.
quote:
He is a bear lying in wait for me, a lion in hiding;
(Lam 3:10)
end quote:
Do you honestly think that means that the author of Lamentations thought God was a Bear or a Lion?
common FOF use your head
peace
Because I back up what I say with actual documentation, something that seems anathema to you.
Ok, back this up FOF. Quote me, and then show me HOW I was inaccurate. Again, you only make wild and denigrating accusations, but can’t back them up with any actual quotes or facts. And I guess all of the quotes that I presented of yours that said that we were all baised and (include any derogatory expletive) are inaccurate too? Thanks for affirming that. See how ridiculous your generalizing is? You must be getting desperate, no, you ARE desperate.
Um.. FOF, that is his OPINION. That is not his PROOF. See, that is where you go off the tracks constantly. You have one scholar that you leave a link for, and then you expect everyone to just accept what he says at face value because FOF said so. LOL, that is ridiculous. Why does Friedman believe this? What is it based on? I have given evidence that places much doubt about his conclusions. Of course you ignore this, and instead simply quote Friedman’s introduction. This proves nothing. It only shows that you have read his introduction. Your whole argument is that “so and so” said so, so therefore everyone MUST believe it. Well, that is NOT how this works. You can’t stand the fact that I call you on it, and all you can do is repeat the same tired old misnomers over and over again, as if that is magically going to make what you say believable.
I have misrepresented nothing. I have shown actual quotes that prove my points, something you have not done. We already KNOW what Freidman believes. That is obvious. What you have not shown is WHY. Please (as I asked over and over again) give us the QUOTES to back it up. Take your time, at this rate, it will be years before you do, if ever.
Of course I do. Do you? Obviously not. Sacred Texts is a cite that is a compilation of many authors work. It was put together by John Bruno Hare, who tragically died in 2010. Hare simply posted the translated book, with the history, analysis and translation by the author of that book. Go look it up. He is a very famous Jewish scholar. He wrote dozens of articles for the Jewish Encyclopedia.
As for this,
Once again you have not provided one example of this. Not one. You simply repeat that I have done so, over and over again without any proof whatsoever. You then make generalized statements, or say I said something I didn’t say, and when I correct you YOU LEAVE THE CONVERSATION. This happens OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. This is your M.O. It shows that you are a shallow, deceitful troll. You can’t even give objections to what I say, without accusing me two or three times in every post of misquoting or misunderstanding something, but NEVER GIVE ANY PROOF. Where is it, FOF? As you will see below, I will ONCE AGAIN, destroy your ignorant accusations against me, and what will you do? Come back and fling more misnomers at me, or leave the conversation.
You have provided info that we already knew, of which I presented contrary evidence. You then, instead of investigating it, tried to divert the conversation by claiming that I didn’t know who authored some of it. Silly boy. Is this all you got, FOF? More of the same drivel? Again, no detailed anaylsis, no quotes, except for a couple from Friedman’s INTRODUCTION! Anyone can do that. But it doesn’t show that you have any idea that you know what you are talking about. You are simply cutting and pasting things you think make your general and error filled arguments “look good”. Tsk, tsk.
You also said,
What I ACTUALLY SAID was,
Where did I say that they (or you) said that Augustine was teaching that God had a body? Nowhere. What these guys try to pawn off in their deceptive papers is that Augustine believed that anthropomorphism was believed by the Early Christians, and that he had to eradicate it. Those are the quotes I am talking about, that are not produced by you. It’s deceptive, and where are the quotes to prove this? If you analyze this, you will find that they are all taken out of context. Here is one example,
First folks, notice all the ellipses. Paulsen then in his last quote edits right out that Augustine was speaking of the Manicheans (A Gnostic Sect), not the Catholic Church. Here is the entire passage, which will show the deception:
What Augustine is saying here, is that he falsely THOUGHT that the Catholic Church was teaching that God had a body! He says that he accused them of this, and that he THEN learned the truth, that this was a LIE. They totally ellipse this right out of their quote! That is why I provided all the quotes from BEFORE THE TIME OF AUGUSTINE to you, to show that this is a very big error.
What Paulsen does, is blatant deception. Once again, FOF, you fail to understand what someone is writing, instead, you make up your own interpretations.
As I said before, FOF, you need to quote me, and then show HOW I was in error. This you REFUSE TO DO! Why? Because you know that you can’t.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” -Revelations 3:21 . Those who are ‘saved’ will resurrect and obtain a glorified body just as Christ did when He resurrected and gained a glorified body. Our vile sinful nature will be made perfect and clean through His mercy, so we are promised in the scriptures.
we [are] the sons of God and..when he shall appear, we SHALL BE LIKE HIM; for we shall see him as he is. -1 John 3.
“Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned LIKE UNTO HIS GLORIOUS BODY.” – Philippians 3:21
Keep that in mind.
Did you know that you were made in the image of God, and therefore should know that your vile body will one day be made perfect in the resurrection because of Christ’s atonement? That also means that your vile body will resurrect in the exact same form and likeness that Christ did. Christ’s spirit, entered into His physical body again, and thus he was resurrected, or no? That means today, Christ still has this glorified body of flesh and bone.
According to (Luke 24:39): 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.
If you believe that Christ actually has a resurrected body then you can look forward to to having Him Change your vile body that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body. I don’t recall Christ ditching this glorified body after the resurrection, do you?
Christ resurrected into a physical glorified body, no? Your vile body (even if you protest His church) will be resurrected and be glorified even the same as He was glorified, or no? You are or are not His literal offspring? If not, then the simile of Seth:Adam cant be taken literally either. Do you believe for just one second that Seth:Adam as Adam:God is incorrect thinking?
Look at Genesis chapter 1 where we are told we were made in His likeness after His image. What did you say your finite interpretation of it was? Now compare your dogma to that of the bible, look at Genesis 5, to see the same language and comparison but this time between Adam and his son:
Genesis 5: When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God.. When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth
There’s no other way to interpret that context. The significance of earthly fatherhood is a simile of what is to come.
its ok to read that verse and realize that its the exact wording as in ch 1 when it is taught that you and I were made in God’s likeness and after His image. To invent a dogma that we are not His offspring is to borrow apostate doctrine from a corrupted and heretical organization such as the Catholic church stuck in the literal dark ages. Evangelicals of today have no one else to borrow from besides the church they protested from and simply made reformation of some of the doctrine, started book clubs, inferring man’s interpretation of already adulturated truth, starting churches and naming them after themes of doctrine they like to focus on (Baptists, PROTESTants, 7th Day, Evangelical, etc), all without any authority or guidance from the Head of the body of the church whatsoever. What you have demonstrated, by reducing God to a heretical creed, is that you are missing the entire foundation of understanding of God and our relationship to Him.
I want you to know that its ok to accept the truth that Jesus taught saying that he could make you an “heir of God, and joint-heir with Christ; IF [careful, its a conditional WORKS statement] it so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also GLORIFIED TOGETHER.” – Rom 8:17 How might you possibly be glorified along with Christ? Clearly we wouldn’t deserve such a gift, being filthy and sinful ourselves, but Christ cleanses us of our sins, right? what would then hinder us from progressing to be more like Him and accepting the GLORY that He continually promises us?
Was Jesus being blasphemous when he humbly prayed that we might be one with them and share His and His Father’s GLORY? :
“that they may be one, AS WE ARE.”.. “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one IN US: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the GLORY WHICH THOU GAVEST ME I HAVE GIVEN THEM; that they may be one, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be MADE PERFECT in one.”
What is this glory he speaks of? You will be made ‘perfect’ in Christ and God? You can potentially have the same glory Christ received from God? To downplay the glory we can be given would be to downplay the God’s glory and the glory He gave to Christ. What does it mean to be one IN them?
I hope you’re sitting down for this one. Do you fathom that its possible for you to ever sit in Christ’s throne in the same way that He has sat down in His Father’s throne? What is the significance of God’s throne? What is it a symbol of? :
“21 To him that overcometh [more conditional WORKS language] will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” -Rev 3:21
Christ takes a putrid sinful person and teaches over and over that when that person accepts His mercy, is forgiven, and the price has been paid, He gives EVERYTHING He has to that person (Glory, Throne, Glorified body made of the same material as His). That newly glorified person, being purified from his worldly sins, in the Image of God, who has inherited all that the father hath, has no direction to progress in eternity but closer to God
Is it possible that Christ was kidding when He said He would Give us the SAME glory that God gave Him? Did He misspeak when He said we could sit in HIS throne? was the bible wrong when it says our bodies will resurrect in the same manor as Christ?
We have literally no capacity to comprehend God’s glory, and those in the bible who did, were transfigured or else God’s glory would have killed them. But in the same way that little baby Seth could never comprehend all that His father Adam knew, he one day grew up and was VERY SIMILAR to his father, right? Made of the same substance, received the same responsibilities, the same glory as his father. How is it not possible for you to grasp that you and I will one day be made perfect through Christ, and that we will be like him, sharing His glory, His throne, His “glorious body,” His oneness with the Father etc etc?
“No one need be confused about what “God is spirit” means in connection to Mormonism’s assertion that God the Father has “a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s,” for Jesus, in another time and place, explained, “a spirit does not have flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39).”
go ahead, dont be afraid to finish that verse in Luke 24:39, …“a spirit does not have flesh and bones…as ye see I have.” So yes, Christ’s resurrection couldn’t more clearly point out the error in your logic. Christ does have a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s. did you not read the preceding verses where Christ eats honey and fish, and has His apostles touch and feel the wounds in His hands? … Christ expects us to follow in his footpath. Despite not needing to be cleansed of sin, Christ was baptized so that we might follow Him. Christ was resurrected and said we too would resurrect in a like manner. What heretical Dark Age’s dogma has crept into your mind to teach anything other than this sublime truth?
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” -Revelations 3:21 . Those who are ‘saved’ will resurrect and obtain a glorified body just as Christ did when He resurrected and gained a glorified body. Our vile sinful nature will be made perfect and clean through His mercy, so we are promised in the scriptures.
we [are] the sons of God and..when he shall appear, we SHALL BE LIKE HIM; for we shall see him as he is. -1 John 3.
“Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned LIKE UNTO HIS GLORIOUS BODY.” – Philippians 3:21
I am very much confused at how you state that John 4:24, reduces God to only a spirit, noncorporal being.
In Greek, There are no indefinite articles (a, an), so the passage can be translated “God is spirit” or god is a spirit.” Most translations interpret it in the first way because John’s statement here parallels other such passages in his first epistle, “god is light,” “God is love.” All of these referred to God’s activity toward men rather than the NATURE of his being. For we would never say God is “a love” or “a light,” or as another commenter put it, “He is a bear…a lion..”
Latter Day saints do not believe that spirit is incorporeal. For a spirit has bodily substance of its own kind it’s own form, finer in pure and glorified body, made of divine elements, although much different than our mortal comparisons. Our “vile body will one day be fashioned like unto His glorious body” – Phillipians 3:21, and it will be spirit matter, like that of the resurrected Moses who appeared to Peter James and John.
Tertuliian 200 AD, said it quite succinctly, “for who will deny that God is a body, although god is a spirit? For spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, its own form.”
Yes!! Tertuliian, you were right man!! although many of your peers, through the centuries, bastardized the sublime truths because none of them were authorized priesthood successors to the apostles, so their teachings must all be read with a grain of salt. Just as many well-intentioned Christians in Tertulliians day preached the gospel to the best of their finite abilities, so today, the Evangelicals preach their limited understanding. the only difference is, that today there actually are prophets who to listen to, and in their day there were none. I really can’t blame them for their short-sidedness, they did quite well, despite everyman for himself sorta understanding, being “carried about with every wind of doctrine” since there was no Church of God in their time.
Ephesians 4: 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,
Read that 20 times if you have to. Christ built a body, His Church, an actual organization with actual characteristics. Its purpose was:
1) for the perfecting of the Saints.
2) for the work of the ministry
3) for the edifying of the body of Christ
and this mission statement of his Church Body should exist in order to bring about:
1) unity of the faith (hasn’t happend yet, so the church must needs exist)
2) Knowledge o the Son of God and His nature!
3) so no one is lost in terms of doctrine and interpretations of God’s word.
Not one of you can claim you are part of the body of Christ, just by declaring it at the pulpit. Remember how he said that apostles, prophets, evangelists etc, were to teach of only form of baptism, one Lord, one faith, and that this organization would be FOR THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY?
which one of you can claim to do the work of the ministry but isn’t in a church described here? The body of Christ, full of callings, and positions, were created to clarify doctrine and preach the word. just as 1 Corinthians 12 says, you can’t rip off one part of this body of christ only to insert your own position. None of you are in the Body of christ, as specific organization, which preserved doctrine, had apostles, could baptize. You can’t just say, every random non-denominational church goer is part of the Body of Christ.. hahaha. They are tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, making up their own Trinitarian notions, and false doctrines, with zero capacity to rightfully do the “work of the ministry” “edify the church” or “pefect the saints,” for they are not in an organization.
Its unbiblical to pretend that you are part of the body of Christ, by making up a random church, with a random name, with random callings, with random ministry, with arbitrary sacrament, etc.
And no, the bible doesn’t give you the authority, because the bible itself doesn’t even assert that.
This body of Christ of Saints was persecuted by the dominant religion at the time even by those who were well versed with scripture.
Ok, i’ll calm down now. I really have no hard feelings for any of you, nor the way you look at the gospel. God knows that many well intentioned people are doing the best they know considering their circumstances. Its better that we stand together since we’re probably only decades away from the second coming of our Lord. In our church we gladly preach that when Christ comes and while all the wicked burn, the righteous will be gathered together. those righteous of course include people of all faiths, and we know that good people like you will help us rebuild this war-torn land, and prepare to be caught up into heaven at His coming and also prepare for the Millennium.
If your heart is right, God will lead you to the truth, every knee shall bow, and all good Christians will accept Christ’s gospel.
see you there.
Hey Lamanai,
How are you doing?
you said,
Ok, i’ll calm down now.
I say,
cool because it is very difficult to understand you when you are so upset. Now that you are calm could you please try and restate your case and this time focus on one thing at a time preferably the actualtopic at hand?
You seem to think that we Christians deny that Jesus has a physical body.
Where did you hear that?
You also seem to think we Christians deny that we will reign with Christ and that we are united with him
Where did you hear that?
You seem to think that Christian believe that Christ did not set up a “an actual organization with actual characteristics.”
Where did you hear that?
I know that you are upset but it looks to me like you are engaged in tearing down a straw-man that I as a Christian don’t even recognize.
Peace
Lamani,
If you are going to quote Tertullian, please don’t take him out of context. Here is the entire passage that shows that you are doing so:
CHAPTER 7 — THE SON BY BEING DESIGNATED WORD AND WISDOM, (ACCORDING TO THE IMPERFECTION OF HUMAN THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE) LIABLE TO BE DEEMED A MERE ATTRIBUTE. HE IS SHOWN TO BE A PERSONAL BEING.
Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, “Let there be light.” This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God — formed by Him first to devise and think out all thinks under the name of Wisdom — “The Lord created or formed me as the beginning of His ways;” then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect — “When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.” Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things; and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, m a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart — even as the Father Himself testifies: “My heart,” says He, “has emitted my most excellent Word.” The father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a reciprocal gladness in the Father’s presence: “You art my Son, today have I begotten You;” even before the morning star did I beget You. The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: “The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me.” For if indeed Wisdom in this passage seems to say that She was created by the Lord with a view to His works, and to accomplish His ways, yet proof is given in another Scripture that “all things were made by the Word, and without Him was there nothing made;” as, again, in another place (it is said), “By His word were the heavens established, and all the powers thereof by His Spirit” — that is to say, by the Spirit (or Divine Nature) which was in the Word: thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of the Word, which was initiated for the works of God? which “strengthened the heavens;” “by which all things were made,” “and without which nothing was made.” Nor need we dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name both of Wisdom and of Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit.
He became also the Son of God, and was begotten when He proceeded forth from Him. Do you then, (you ask,) grant that the Word is a certain substance, constructed by the Spirit and the communication of Wisdom? Certainly I do. But you will not allow Him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able (as being constituted second to God the Father,) to make two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word. For you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound of the mouth, and (as the grammarians teach) air when struck against, intelligible to the ear, but for the rest a sort of void, empty, and incorporeal thing. I, on the contrary, contend that nothing empty and void could have come forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth from that which is empty and void; nor could that possibly be devoid of substance which has proceeded from so great a substance, and has produced such mighty substances: for all things which were made through Him, He Himself (personally) made. How could it be, that He Himself is nothing, without whom nothing was made? How could He who is empty have made things which are solid, and He who is void have made things which are full, and He who is incorporeal have made things which have body? For although a thing may sometimes be made different from him by whom it is made, yet nothing can be made by that which is a void and empty thing. Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself is designated God? “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It is written, “You shalt not take God’s name in vain.” This for certain is He “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none. For who will deny that God is a body, although “God is a Spirit?” For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form. Now, even if invisible things, whatsoever they be, have both their substance and their form in God, whereby they are visible to God alone, how much more shall that which has been sent forth from His substance not be without substance! Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father. (Against Praxeus, Chapter 7)
Now, what exactly did he mean? You must read all of his treatise to know. Tertullian is teaching here, that the Father is SOMETHING, not nothing. He then tries to liken this as best he can with limited human words. In Chapter 2, he teaches,
Chapter 2. The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity, Sometimes Called the Divine Economy, or Dispensation of the Personal Relations of the Godhead
In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her— being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever— that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of various persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; YET OF ONE SUBSTANCE, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as HE IS ONE GOD, from whom THESE DEGREES AND FORMS AND ASPECTS ARE RECKONED, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number WITHOUT DIVISION, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.(Against Praxeas, Chapter II).
Tertullian did NOT teach that the Father had a corporeal body. He is a SPIRIT. You are misapplying how Tertullian used the word “form”. Mormons believe that the Father has a Body of Flesh, something anathema to the Early Church Fathers. Incorporeal does not mean that the Father does not have a Spiritual “Form”, a term applied to the Father, as Tertullian says, according to the imperfection of human thought and language.
You are conflating two separate issues here. Christ was the Incarnation of God. In fact your own “prophet”, Jo Smith, explained this very well at one time. He said,
Of course, Jo here thought that there were only TWO Personages in the Godhead, the Holy “Ghost” being simply the mind of God. Mormons also at one time believed in the Trinity. These are contradictions very hard for most Mormons to deal with.
The Apostles thought that Jesus might be a Spirit, simply because they were not expecting Christ to appear to them as he did. And Jesus said, Hey, I’m NOT a Spirit, because a Spirit doen’t have flesh and bones as I do now. That differentiates what the Father is (Spirit) from what the Son is (a resurrected personage).
How you can use this as some kind of trump card is baffling. And the language you are using is very hyperbolic, “Dark age dogma”?
Christians believe all the things that you write here. You are acting like FOF, creating a false dichotomy to then rail against. What we don’t believe is that the Father has a body of Flesh and Bones, or that He needs one.
See, here is your problem. You think that God is REDUCED, by being a Spirit. We do not. The Bible clearly teaches that the Father doesn’t need to be defined in human terms,
As Paul explains,
As Christ in the flesh conformed to the Divine Nature of the Father, so we conform in the flesh to the Divine Nature of the Son. This has nothing to do with a body. It is Spiritual. This is true Theosis. How does this happen? Paul says,
By the Spirit by “the renewal of you mind”.
I don’t have time to give you a Greek lesson here, or how Greek is translated into English. Suffice it to say, you are oversimplifying. This is usually done by those that don’t understand Greek translation. And you are being disingenuous in plagiarizing this from FAIR, where you seem to have lifted your whole argument from.
They are notorious for taking the ECF’s out of context. So I will skip your next segment about Tertullian which I have addressed separately.
Um. Tertullian preached nothing like what Mormonism teaches. In fact, he coined the word “Trinity”. I think I have established that you are grossly mistaken in this. This shows who really has the “limited understanding” here. And there was a Church, there has always been a Church, for Christ said, he would not leave us, that he would send His Spirit, and that where two or three are gathered, he would be there. I don’t take that promise lightly, as all Mormons must do.
Another whole argument, which I have dealt with here. Please read up on and come to an understanding of Spiritual Gifts, of which Paul is speaking of here. This verse is also taken out of context by Mormons.
This shows an amazing lack of understanding concerning Christians. No one claims to be anything by just declaring it. You must believe it. Then, you must be transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit, which is gives one the authority of Christ. This is what Paul is speaking of in Ephesians.
No. What he actually says is,
THEN, Paul describes those GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT.
Again, you fail to understand what Paul is talking about. One BODY and one SPIRIT, means the body of believers (wherever they may be) UNIFIED by the Holy Spirit through Spiritual Gifts.
So you just mock them? We can say this, because the Body of Christ is made up of individual believers who are transformed by the Holy Spirit to the renewing of their minds and given Spiritual Gifts as HE dictates. No one is ORDAINED to a Spiritual GIFT. This is what Mormonism does, and that is what is un-Biblical. As Paul says, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles” (2 Cor. 12:12). Where are the Mormon “apostles” signs wonders and miracles? Nowhere to be found (except for investing money).
The variety of gifts is parallel to the parts of the human body, and Paul uses this analogy in 1 Corinthians 12:4 17. “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:4). “And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord” (1 Cor. 12:5). “There are varieties of effects, but the same God” (1 Cor. 12:6).
You say,
Wow. All Christians that are not part of some ORGANIZED CHURCH, can’t do the work of the Ministry? And what is that? James says,
The Salvation Army, which is a body of believers, does more “Work of the Ministry” than Mormonism has ever done. It considers itself only a PART of the Christian Church:
Again, you are centered on Organizations and Works, not on the Holy Spirit. And the Bible is our basis of our doctrine. We find the Trinity taught in the Bible, for it teaches that there is only ONE GOD.
Again with the hyperbole. Pretend? All of us are just pretending? No one here doubts that Mormons are sincere in their beliefs. But you MOCK Christians and denigrate them in the worst way, simply because you interpret the Bible with the lens of Mormon “prophets”, who contradict themselves at every turn.
No one says the BIBLE gives us authority. CHRIST does. The BIBLE DOES assert THAT.
What does this even mean? Do you even know? If you are talking about the Jews persecuting the Christians, then yes. But that doesn’t translate into some mythical “Great Apostasy”.
You could have fooled me that you don’t have hard feelings. You just mocked and denigrated all Christians.
This is what Jo Smith taught and he was wrong too. No one knows the day nor the hour. This is how as Peter said, “They have wandered off the right road and followed the footsteps of Balaam son of Beor, who loved to earn money by doing wrong.” (2 Peter 2:1-22) Read the entire chapter.
Actually, Mormons taught that the Gentiles would be destroyed. They predicted this would happen by 1890. They hated the Christians/Gentiles, and taught that they were all wicked. I have many quotes to back this up. It is very disingenuous of you to come here, mock Christians and then try to smooth it over with platitudes. And Mormons believe that they will be in charge of everyone, their “prophet” the theocratic leader of the world. I, for one will not submit to their theocratic Corporate Government. This is not what is going to happen at the Second Coming.
This is extremely redundant and non-sequitur. God has already led us to the truth. If you are a Christian, then you have ALREADY accepted Jesus as your Lord and Saviour and you will get your reward: “For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.” Why don’t we re-write this as you really meant it:
If your heart is right, God will lead you to the truth, every knee shall bow, and all good Christians will accept Mormonism.
This is not Christ’s “good news”. What THAT is, Paul taught:
Lamanai,
thanks for stopping by . I’ve got to be honest with you here , I’ve rarely seen so many
false assumptions and conjecture packed into a post as what you have done today .
The verses you referenced such as Jn 17; Phil 3:21 ; Rom 8 ; Gen 1:16 ; Rev 3:21 etc are
not teaching what you imply they are , the early believers in the New Testament church were not Mormons — different church and different doctrine of God .
It’s hard to take you seriously when you actually believe that we do not believe that
Jesus rose bodily from the grave and still has His body today . But that seems to be
your belief about us . Did that accusation come from a inner witness of the Spirit ?
Let me briefly comment on some of the other ( off topic) things you claimed about us :
you said we , ” borrow apostate doctrine from a corrupted and heretical organization
such as the Catholic church stuck in the dark ages .”
Did Brigham Young borrow any doctrine from ” apostates ” to craft his teachings about
Negroes/black skin ? The evidence points to the fact he did just that . Yet your
leaders still can’t publically admit he taught false doctrine .
you seem to feel that the Mormon church fits the description of Jesus’ church
organization as listed in 1Cor 12 and Eph 4 . , and you stated ,
” The Body of Christ , full of callings ,and positions , were created to clarify doctrine
and preach the word . Just as 1 Cor 12 says , you can’t rip off one part of this body
only to insert your own position . ”
The Mormon church leaders clarify doctrine ? If you take the time to examine their
teaching track record since 1830 you’ll notice a pattern . A consistent pattern of
vacillating . They have to many times ” preached for doctrine the commandments
of men ” . As a result the Mormon people have been tossed to and fro ( Mk 7:7;Eph4:14)
And talk about ” inserting your own position ” , you follow in lock step the behavior
of your leadership by emphasing the church offices in 1 Cor 12 and Eph 4 :11 in such
a way as to assure people that the Mormon church is the same exact church that Jesus
established through His apostles 2000 years ago ( N.T.) . However your leaders have
allowed their own ideas to pass as godly counsel and resorted to inserting other offices
into ” Jesus’ church” ( The Patriarch to the church; First Presidency etc . ) .
So what Mormon leaders were claiming to be Jesus’ church ” restored ” ,actually was
only a good counterfeit . ( Like adding some man made ingredients to a loaf of organic
bread and trying to sell it as a pure and natural product — you have to get very
creative to pull that off ) .
Verdict:
You accuse others of , ” making up a random church” , yet your leaders have done the same thing . So if the shoe fits ….
Lamanai, the true gospel does teach pardon for sinful man to be able to live with
His Creator forever . However , the gospel you have been detoured into accepting
is another gospel — Gal 1:8 . You are not going to become an Almighty God and
create vast kingdoms of subjects ( progeny) who homage and serve you as their
heavenly Father and God . That’s the ultimate lie . There is only One true Lord God
He is Creator of heaven and earth , and He alone is unique and so Majestic that a sinful
creature like you can never become a copy . A imperfect sinful creature ( man ) can
become perfect — but still is only a perfect man . That’s not the same as the Lord God
our Creator , the gulf between the two will forever be .
Dismiss your prophets and be free from them today , Jesus has fore warned you they
would come — Matt 24:11 .
Not the Lord God Almighty who we worship .
Lamanai said,
starting churches and naming them after themes of doctrine they like to focus on (Baptists, PROTESTants, 7th Day, Evangelical, etc),
I say,
Apparently you don’t understand where the names of various demonstrations came from. You need to do a little research
Baptists did not choose the name “Baptist” for themselves. That name was a term of derision given to them by people not part of their group and it stuck. The same goes for the other groups you mention.
As a matter of fact that is exactly how your organization came to be labeled “Mormon”. That is also probably how the original disciples of “the Way” came to be labeled “Christian” (Acts 9:2, 19:9,11:26,)
Instead of spending so much effort worrying what men from time to time choose to call each other you might be better served making sure that the Lord knows you and don’t hold to his name falsely.
When it comes down to it what other men call you will not make much difference.
quote:
We have become like those over whom you have never ruled, like those who are not called by your name.
(Isa 63:19)
and
But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
(2Ti 2:19)
end quote:
peace
@Faithoffathers
Actually Fof, there is no ‘conflation’. In the Greek there’s only one word to describe Spirit ~ Pneuma / Πνεῦμα. It’s not a Spirit or Spirit, as an ‘a’ was interpolated by those trying to make sense of the context.
“Spirit does not have flesh and bones” is clearly what’s written.
I hope that’s clear here and I suggest you do your research before coming to this conclusion. If I’m wrong, I’m happy to admit, but you have to start with proper Greek language exegesis.
Brigham Young again, has failed.
Rikkij,
Then please explain how we are to worship God in spirit if what you are saying is true.
Once again,
So… Let’s go back to Romans 12. Here, Paul talks about TRUE WORSHIP. What he says, confirms what I am saying:
Paul speaks of “true” and “proper” worship. He links this to what? NOT “conforming to the pattern of the world”, or as James states, keeping yourself “unspotted” from the world. (James 1:27) Then what does Paul do? He tells us about the HOLY SPIRIT! The GIFTS that the Spirit gives us, to help us to NOT conform to the world. Thus we worship in THE Spirit, and IN truth.
The Bible has all the answers. FOF, and Mormonism do not.
One more clincher. This is Paul again, writing to the Ephesians:
This is worship in the SPIRIT and in TRUTH. We are renewed in the Spirit of our MINDS, by the Holy Spirit, who helps us to overcome the weakness of the flesh. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians,
“Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. ”
Hmmmmm……..
Pingback: What’s In A Name? | Mormon Coffee