God as Spirit or flesh and bone

[dberrie2000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdjhere
RussianWolfe said: "Provide the scriptural support for your belief that God could be in multiple places at the same time."

We will do this after we discuss whether or not God is a Spirit, as Jesus said He was. John 4:24 "God is spirit,” He (Jesus) declared, “and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.”



dberrie---So--does God possess a physical body or is He just a Spirit only?

I thought this might be a good question for the forum to discuss. Any comments?

[Billyray]

Quote:
dberrie---So--does God possess a physical body or is He just a Spirit only?




God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, Jesus has a resurrected body.

[Snow Patrol]

God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, Jesus has a resurrected body.

I wonder why you don't answer "God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, God the Son has a resurrected body."

Could it be because it complicates your explanation?

[RealFakeHair]

Quote:
I thought thhis might be a good question for the forum to discuss. Any comments?

Psa 91:4. He shall cover thee with his Feathers, and under his Wings shalt thou trust his truth.

[jdjhere]

SnowPatrol said: "I wonder why you don't answer "God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, God the Son has a resurrected body."
Could it be because it complicates your explanation?

It doesnt complicate anything at all, SnowPatrol. OK...

"God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, God the Son has a resurrected body..."
but tell the REST of the Truth...
"God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, God the Son has a resurrected Glorified Spiritual body that houses God the Son Who is Spirit."

God the Father and God the Son in the beginning were and are God (John 1:1) and the Logos became flesh. God (Spirit) the Son is inhabiting a Glorified, Resurrected Spiritual Body right now and is still fully God, still OUTSIDE of this body because God IS Omipresent and you cannot hide from Him because God is Spirit.

[dberrie2000]

God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, Jesus has a resurrected body.

Is not Jesus God also? How can God have a body of flesh and bones--and be a Spirit only--without a body of flesh and bones?

[jdjhere]

“You are the God who sees me” (Genesis 16:13)

How does God see Hagar if He is a man and is not omnipresent?

[RealFakeHair]

Is not Jesus God also? How can God have a body of flesh and bones--and be a Spirit only--without a body of flesh and bones?

The Godhead is three persons in one Godhead, thus The Father Spirit, The Son Body and the Holy Ghost is the Godhead Repersentative here on earth.
If you don't buy it, okay move on, is my best advice.

[jdjhere]

DBerrie said: "Is not Jesus God also?
Yes
DBerrie said: "How can God have a body of flesh and bones.."
because the Word (Jesus, Logos, monogenes Son of God) BECAME flesh...
DBerrie said: "and be a Spirit only without a body of flesh and bones?"
In the Beginning was the Word (Jesus, Logos) and the Word (Jesus, Logos) was with God and the Word (Jesus, Logos) WAS God (God is SPIRIT)... and the Word (Jesus, Logos, God the Son, SPIRIT) BECAME (took on, wrapped Himself in) flesh" (because He WAS Spirit in the beginning, God the Son, and is STILL a Spirit that "took on flesh".

Is this really that hard to understand, DBerrie2000?

[Snow Patrol]

“You are the God who sees me” (Genesis 16:13)

How does God see Hagar if He is a man and is not omnipresent?

Well, I could get technical and ask how God, even being omnipresent, can see Hagar if God does not have eye*****, cornea, etc.

[dberrie2000]

DBerrie said: "Is not Jesus God also?
Yes
DBerrie said: "How can God have a body of flesh and bones.."
because the Word (Jesus, Logos, monogenes Son of God) BECAME flesh...
DBerrie said: "and be a Spirit only without a body of flesh and bones?"
In the Beginning was the Word (Jesus, Logos) and the Word (Jesus, Logos) was with God and the Word (Jesus, Logos) WAS God... and the Word (Jesus, Logos) BECAME (took on, wrapped Himself in) flesh" because He WAS Spirit in the beginning, God the Son.

Is this really that hard to understand, DBerrie2000?


How does this address the fact that the Trinitarians have God with both a body of flesh and bone--and only a Spirit? Referring to the fact that God the Son was Spirit before He obtained a resurrected body of flesh and bone--will not solve the problem--for the faith alone still has the Father as Spirit only.

The Trinitarians believe in the "****ousios"(same substance) God.

How can God have different substances, I.E.--God the Son having a resurrected body of flesh and bone--and God the Father a Spirit only?

[jdjhere]

SnowPatrol said: "Well, I could get technical and ask how God, even being omnipresent, can see Hagar if God does not have eye*****, cornea, etc.

I could get technical too and say "What does God do as a man to see Hagar...take his eye***** out and throw them to earth?"

Because God is omniscient and omnipresent because He is Spirit. It is just who God is.

[jdjhere]

DBerrie said: "How can God have different substances, I.E.--God the Son having a resurrected body of flesh and bone--and God the Father a Spirit only?"

but you leave out that God the Son is SPIRIT as well, simultaneously IN His Resurrected Glorified Spiritual Physical Body and OUT of it as well because He is God the Son, Omnipresent and Omniscient. Acts 1:11 "Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven..." BODILY housing God the Son who is Spirit.

[dberrie2000]

dberrie---How does this address the fact that the Trinitarians have God with both a body of flesh and bone--and only a Spirit? Referring to the fact that God the Son was Spirit before He obtained a resurrected body of flesh and bone--will not solve the problem--for the faith alone still has the Father as Spirit only.

The Trinitarians believe in the "****ousios"(same substance) God.

How can God have different substances, I.E.--God the Son having a resurrected body of flesh and bone--and God the Father a Spirit only?




DBerrie said: "How can God have different substances, I.E.--God the Son having a resurrected body of flesh and bone--and God the Father a Spirit only?"

but you leave out that God the Son is SPIRIT as well, simultaneously IN His Resurrected Glorified Spiritual Physical Body and OUT of it as well because He is God the Son, Omnipresent and Omniscient. Acts 1:11 "Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. BODILY


Well--if God the Son possesses a body through the eternities, and God the Father does not--you still have God with different substances.

Explaining that God the Son has a Spirit also does not solve it--as He also has a body of flesh and bones--which the Trinitarian faith alone deny the Father has.

That involves two different substances--One, Flesh and Bone--the other--Spirit only. Adding a Spirit to Jesus does not solve the problem.

[jdjhere]

dberrie asked: "How does this address the fact that the Trinitarians have God with both a body of flesh and bone--and only a Spirit?"
This is incorrect. God the Son "clothed Himself, wrapped Himself, took on" flesh, NOT the Father or Holy Spirit. This was ONLY the Son. God is SPIRIT- Father, Son, Holy Spirit.. 3 distinct personalities that are Spirit and are One, communicate with each other and function as the One True and Living God. Mix 3 soups together- they are now one soup. Spirits without bodies could certainly exist together and be one En***y, even if we can not understand it. H2O exists as fluid, ice and steam.

When Jesus said (John 4:24) " God is Spirit " He was talking about God in context of the Old Testament and how believers knew Him, as an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent Being because He was Spirit. Then Jesus (God the Son) came in the flesh and said "Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father. You have now seen Him and KNOW HIM." (John 14:7) Why? Because (Col 2:9) "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily".

[dberrie2000]

dberrie---Well--if God the Son possesses a body through the eternities, and God the Father does not--you still have God with different substances.

Explaining that God the Son has a Spirit also does not solve it--as He also has a body of flesh and bones--which the Trinitarian faith alone deny the Father has.

That involves two different substances--One, Flesh and Bone--the other--Spirit only. Adding a Spirit to Jesus does not solve the problem.



JD---- This is incorrect. God the Son "clothed Himself, wrapped Himself, took on" flesh, NOT the Father or Holy Spirit. This was ONLY the Son. God is SPIRIT- Father, Son, Holy Spirit..

But we are now back where we began. If only Jesus took on the flesh--and still possesses it--and not the Father--then They have two different substances.

How do you collate that to the "****ousious"(same substance) God?



3 distinct personalities that are Spirit and are One,

And one with a Spirit and one with flesh and bone. JD--you are differentiating personalities.

The question is--does God possess a physical body. You believe they are the same God--so--if one God possesses a physical body--then the other does also. You can only differentiate that at the person level--I am asking the question at the level of the one God, as the faith alone believe.



communicate with each other and function as the One True and Living God.


The "only true God" or the only "one God" the Biblical text ever identifies is God the Father--even when Jesus Christ is added in the same sentence:

St John17:3--"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."


1 Cor8:6--"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

Where do you see any reference to anyone but God the Father in the NT as the "one God" or the "only true God"?



Mix 3 soups together- they are now one soup. Spirits without bodies could certainly exist together and be one En***y, even if we can not understand it. H2O exists as fluid, ice and steam.


But not at the same time. How could God the Father appear to Jesus Christ in the Mount of Transfiguration, and announce His Only Begotten Son?

[jdjhere]

DBerrie2000 asked: "How do you collate that to the "****ousious"(same substance) God?"

God is Spirit. This Spirit is the same substance (****ousious) made up of 3 distinct personalities or persons... the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Christ Body was "added" because He took on flesh to save us, but the substance that is the same (****ousious) is God Himself (Spirit)- that is the Father (Spirit), Son (Spirit) and Holy (Spirit) are the same substance, all fully God, co-eternal Spirit. The Spirit of God that dwells in God the Son is the same substance as God the Father (Spirit) and God the Holy (Spirit). But the Son "took on" or "became" flesh but God the Son (Spirit) that is housed in a Spiritual Body is still the same substance as God the Father (Spirit) and the Holy (Spirit)- that being Eternal Spirit that existed as God with no beginning and no end.
One of the names of God in the Old Testament is Jehovah-Elohim. It is translated in our King James Bible as "The LORD God" and literally means "Jehovah is Elohim," or "The LORD is God."
Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Jehovah] your God [Elohim] is one LORD [Jehovah]."

[jdjhere]

DBerrie2000 said: "even when Jesus Christ is added in the same sentence:"

St John17:3--"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

The question is WHY is Jesus Christ even added to the same sentence? Because eternal life is dependent on what? By knowing the only true God and... who else? Why parallel the two?
1 John 5:20 "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

[dberrie2000]

JD----God is Spirit. This Spirit is the same substance made up of 3 distinct personalities or persons... the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, JD, but that dog just ain't gonna hunt. One cannot state that there are different persons as God, and ***ign them two different substances--one a physical body,(God the Son) and the other without a physical body(God the Father) and then state it is the same substance.

Unless you want to establish the fact, that as God, where they all combine--- there is only one--that they are of the same substance. In that case--is it a Spirit and a physical Body--or just a Spirit?



Christ Body was "added" because He took on flesh to save us, but the substance that is the same (****ousious) is God Himself (Spirit)- that is the Father (Spirit), Son (Spirit) and Holy (Spirit) are the same substance, all fully God, co-eternal Spirit.

Christ not only "added" a body--He still has it. That means that Christ has a physical body and a Spirit--and God the Father has a Spirit only.

Does God have a physical body?

[dberrie2000]

JD---St John17:3--"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

The question is WHY is Jesus Christ even added to the same sentence? Because eternal life is dependent on what? By knowing the only true God and... who else?

Who else? The only other One the scripture identifies--Jesus Christ.

Your attempt to merge the two runs into immediate problems:


St John20:17--"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

Who was Jesus' God? Who does the scriptures identify as the One who gave Jesus Christ His inheritance of all things:

Hebrews1:2--"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

[Billyray]

St John20:17--"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

Who was Jesus' God? Who does the scriptures identify as the One who gave Jesus Christ His inheritance of all things:


Why do you see this as an issue given the fact that you know that Jesus voluntary lowered himself to be like one of us?

[Billyray]

Hebrews1:2--"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

when do you think Jesus went from owing nothing to having all things?

[dberrie2000]

dberrie---Who else? The only other One the scripture identifies--Jesus Christ.

Your attempt to merge the two runs into immediate problems:


St John20:17--"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

Who was Jesus' God? Who does the scriptures identify as the One who gave Jesus Christ His inheritance of all things:

Hebrews1:2--"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"




Why do you see this as an issue given the fact that you know that Jesus voluntary lowered himself to be like one of us?


Because that explanation does not even touch upon the problem of Jesus having a God over Himself--nor inheriting all things.

[Billyray]

Because that explanation does not even touch upon the problem of Jesus having a God over Himself--nor inheriting all things.

When Jesus voluntarily lowered himself to become like one of us wouldn't that include Jesus following God the Father like we are asked to do?

[jdjhere]

DBerrie2000 said: "How could God the Father appear to Jesus Christ in the Mount of Transfiguration, and announce His Only Begotten Son?"

Define "appear" because it was NOT bodily.

Jesus was transformed before His disciples. It would have been of great interest to have heard the words our Lord was speaking to the Father as His appearance began to be changed. Jesus is then called Son by a voice in the sky from God the Father, as in the baptism of Jesus.

Matthew 17:5-8 While he was yet speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and touched them and said, "Arise, and be not afraid." And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one, save Jesus only.
Luke 9:34-36 While he thus spoke, there came a cloud and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered into the cloud. And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, “THIS IS MY BELOVED SON. HEAR HIM!”And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.
Mark9:7-8 And there came a cloud overshadowing them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, "This is my beloved Son: hear ye him."And suddenly looking round about, they saw no one any more save Jesus only with themselves.
2 Peter 1:16-18 "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: and this voice we [ourselves] heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Show me Biblical Scripture that proves the Father "appeared" bodily to Jesus Christ in the Mount of Transfiguration. There was a cloud and a Voice and.... Jesus alone. I wonder why? Maybe because the God the Father is Spirit and God the Son was housed in a body?

[Apologette]

I wonder why you don't answer "God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, God the Son has a resurrected body."

Could it be because it complicates your explanation?

I'm sorry that Mormons have such an inadequate grasp on sound Biblical doctrine. It leads them to the ludicrous conclusion that God has a physical Body. That is incredibly naive and childish. Like something some Hindu would believe (and they do).

The Bible clearly says God is Spirit. But, as ususal, Mormons reject that and pretend that that's fine, because that just means he has a spirit. You twist God's Word to support the infantile, irrational idea that God has a physical body. This is simply pagan - and Mormonism has much in common with pagansim. In fact, it has restored it one might say. Plainly childish.

I'm not going into a long teaching on the bible's teaching that God is Spirit. Here is an article if anybody cares:

http://bible.org/seriespage/god-spirit

I will say one thing, however. God the Word took on the additional NATURE of humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ. In Christ the Nature of God and the Nature of Man were joined together in One Person. This is called the hypostatic union. The physical nature of Christ is not God, He is only God in His divine nature. However, His physical body is glorified, and our bodies will be made like unto His own glorious body in the resurrection. In other words, study the hypostatic union.

So, the ignorance of those who attack Christians who believe God is Spirit, as the bible doubtless teaches, is rooted in a pagan and diminished understanding of God. The Mormon "god" is an inferior god, limited by time and space, and is a contingent, dependent creature. Mormon-god saves nobody!

[Snow Patrol]

Do me a favor and put me back on ignore.

[Apologette]

Do me a favor and put me back on ignore.

Well, since you just made that snarky little remark (probably because you are totally unable to give a cogent response to my post), I'll make sure I respond to your every post. I'll be your best bud! Always there with a word of encouragement.

[Snow Patrol]

Well, since you just made that snarky little remark (probably because you are totally unable to give a cogent response to my post), I'll make sure I respond to your every post. I'll be your best bud! Always there with a word of encouragement.

You want to talk snarky? :rolleyes:

"I'm sorry that Mormons have such an inadequate grasp on sound Biblical doctrine. It leads them to the ludicrous conclusion that God has a physical Body. That is incredibly naive and childish. Like something some Hindu would believe (and they do).

The Bible clearly says God is Spirit. But, as ususal, Mormons reject that and pretend that that's fine, because that just means he has a spirit. You twist God's Word to support the infantile, irrational idea that God has a physical body. This is simply pagan - and Mormonism has much in common with pagansim. In fact, it has restored it one might say. Plainly childish.

I'm not going into a long teaching on the bible's teaching that God is Spirit. Here is an article if anybody cares:

http://bible.org/seriespage/god-spirit

I will say one thing, however. God the Word took on the additional NATURE of humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ. In Christ the Nature of God and the Nature of Man were joined together in One Person. This is called the hypostatic union. The physical nature of Christ is not God, He is only God in His divine nature. However, His physical body is glorified, and our bodies will be made like unto His own glorious body in the resurrection. In other words, study the hypostatic union.

So, the ignorance of those who attack Christians who believe God is Spirit, as the bible doubtless teaches, is rooted in a pagan and diminished understanding of God. The Mormon "god" is an inferior god, limited by time and space, and is a contingent, dependent creature. Mormon-god saves nobody!"


I wonder if I can count on James to jump in here and complain about your use of the highlighter words? Nah, probably not. :mad:

[Apologette]

You want to talk snarky? :rolleyes:

"I'm sorry that Mormons have such an inadequate grasp on sound Biblical doctrine. It leads them to the ludicrous conclusion that God has a physical Body. That is incredibly naive and childish. Like something some Hindu would believe (and they do).

The Bible clearly says God is Spirit. But, as ususal, Mormons reject that and pretend that that's fine, because that just means he has a spirit. You twist God's Word to support the infantile, irrational idea that God has a physical body. This is simply pagan - and Mormonism has much in common with pagansim. In fact, it has restored it one might say. Plainly childish.

I'm not going into a long teaching on the bible's teaching that God is Spirit. Here is an article if anybody cares:

http://bible.org/seriespage/god-spirit

I will say one thing, however. God the Word took on the additional NATURE of humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ. In Christ the Nature of God and the Nature of Man were joined together in One Person. This is called the hypostatic union. The physical nature of Christ is not God, He is only God in His divine nature. However, His physical body is glorified, and our bodies will be made like unto His own glorious body in the resurrection. In other words, study the hypostatic union.

So, the ignorance of those who attack Christians who believe God is Spirit, as the bible doubtless teaches, is rooted in a pagan and diminished understanding of God. The Mormon "god" is an inferior god, limited by time and space, and is a contingent, dependent creature. Mormon-god saves nobody!"


I wonder if I can count on James to jump in here and complain about your use of the highlighter words? Nah, probably not. :mad:

You confuse truth with snarky remarks. Now, try to address the argument. No childish temper tantrums.

[Snow Patrol]

... Sick of childish temper tantrums.

Then quit reading your posts. They are full of them.

[Apologette]

Then quit reading your posts. They are full of them.

Is there anybody out there who can give a cogent response? Any Mormon at all?

[Snow Patrol]

Is there anybody out there who can give a cogent response? Any Mormon at all?

Is there any "Christian" out there who can put aside their biases and engage in a civil dialogue without insulting the very people they are trying to engage?

[Snow Patrol]

"God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, God the Son has a resurrected body."

What exactly is incorrect about this?

If A=B and B=C then A=C

Jesus is God the Son
Jesus has a resurrected body.
God the Son has a resurrected body.

How exactly is that incorrect?

[dberrie2000]

dberrie---How could God the Father appear to Jesus Christ in the Mount of Transfiguration, and announce His Only Begotten Son?



JD----Define "appear" because it was NOT bodily.

Jesus was transformed before His disciples. It would have been of great interest to have heard the words our Lord was speaking to the Father as His appearance began to be changed. Jesus is then called Son by a voice in the sky from God the Father, as in the baptism of Jesus.

Matthew 17:5-8 While he was yet speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and touched them and said, "Arise, and be not afraid." And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one, save Jesus only.
Luke 9:34-36 While he thus spoke, there came a cloud and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered into the cloud. And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, “THIS IS MY BELOVED SON. HEAR HIM!”And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.
Mark9:7-8 And there came a cloud overshadowing them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, "This is my beloved Son: hear ye him."And suddenly looking round about, they saw no one any more save Jesus only with themselves.
2 Peter 1:16-18 "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: and this voice we [ourselves] heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Show me Biblical Scripture that proves the Father "appeared" bodily to Jesus Christ in the Mount of Transfiguration. There was a cloud and a Voice and.... Jesus alone. I wonder why? Maybe because the God the Father is Spirit and God the Son was housed in a body?


Whoa, hossy. You likened the Trinity to water in steam, ice, and liquid. I stated ok, but not at the same time.

I placed the Father and the Son together at the same time on the mount of transfiguration to show that ****ogy would not work for me--it had nothing to do with God the Father appearing with a body or without a body.

[dberrie2000]

I'm sorry that Mormons have such an inadequate grasp on sound Biblical doctrine.


The fact of the matter is, Apologette--you have delved in precious little Biblical verse discussion. Anyone who have read your post knows that you mine in the dirt shafts--and the Bible is not in your forte. That is a fact.

[Billyray]

I placed the Father and the Son together at the same time on the mount of transfiguration to show that ****ogy would not work for me--it had nothing to do with God the Father appearing with a body or without a body.

Did we ever expect that you would ever hold Christian doctrine?

[dberrie2000]

I wonder why you don't answer "God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, God the Son has a resurrected body."

Could it be because it complicates your explanation?

That is a very good question--and hits at the heart of my OP.

The answer is obvious--the Trinitarians can separate God the Father and Jesus Christ out as two separate substances--but since they cannot differentiate that in the term "God"--they have to make their minds up--does God have a body of flesh and bone--or is only a Spirit--as they ***ign both those values to each as a separate person--but cannot, as God. They are in a "pickle".

[jdjhere]

Heh heh... OK DBerrie, I misunderstood you. Sorry bout that, Chief. (To post #35) And I do not know WHY you think we are in a "pickle." Seems pretty straight forward and obvious to me.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000
I placed the Father and the Son together at the same time on the mount of transfiguration to show that ****ogy would not work for me--it had nothing to do with God the Father appearing with a body or without a body.



Did we ever expect that you would ever hold Christian doctrine?


Please explain. But first--are you referring to "Christianity" as the faith alone claim it--or as the Biblical text has it in the NT church?

[Billyray]

Please explain.
What is there to explain? You hold heretical doctrine and I don't think any Christian here thinks you will ever see the truth UNLESS God opens up your eyes to the truth.

[jdjhere]

"God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, God the Son has a resurrected body."

What exactly is incorrect about this?

If A=B and B=C then A=C

Jesus is God the Son
Jesus has a resurrected body.
God the Son has a resurrected body.

How exactly is that incorrect?

It is NOT incorrect, except one minor thing- your conclusion is INCOMPLETE-

God the Son has a GLORIFIED resurrected SPIRITUAL PHYSICAL BODY that houses the the SPIRIT of God the Son and this Spirit is ****ousios with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is FULLY man and FULLY God.
"I am the Alpha and the Omega" Isaiah 44:6; Rev 1:8 " I am the Alpha and the Omega" Rev 1:17; 2:8 Rev 22:13-20 WHO is the Alpha and the Omega from these verses? John 1:1-3, 14 Compare Zech 12:10 to John 19:37 Who is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords? There can only be one 1 Timothy 6:15 and Rev 19:16 and why does it say GOD purchased the Church with His OWN BLOOD? Acts 20:28? Read John 1:18

[Billyray]

-does God have a body of flesh and bone--or is only a Spirit--as they ***ign both those values to each as a separate person--but cannot, as God. They are in a "pickle".
God the Father is spirit. God the Son has a resurrected body.

[dberrie2000]

God the Father is spirit. God the Son has a resurrected body.

You have God having both a Spirit and a physical body. Is that true?

Aren't the Father and Son the same God?

[dberrie2000]

What is there to explain? You hold heretical doctrine and I don't think any Christian here thinks you will ever see the truth UNLESS God opens up your eyes to the truth.

But that is just a general statement that anyone can make against another. Please post your scripture and make a specific argument.

[Billyray]

You have God having both a Spirit and a physical body. Is that true?

Aren't the Father and Son the same God?

There is one God in three person: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

[Billyray]

Please post your scripture and make a specific argument.

Just about everything you believe is heretical. So where do you want to start?

[dberrie2000]

"God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, God the Son has a resurrected body."

This is what is obviously wrong--you have the person of Jesus Christ as having a resurrected physical body.

You deny that the Father has such--only a Spirit.

That is fine until you add "God" to the equation.

You can no longer differentiate at that level--because there is but one God there--not three, in the faith alone theology.

So--does God have a resurrected body? A simple yes or no?

[Billyray]

So--does God have a resurrected body? A simple yes or no?

The Father does not have a resurrected body, the Son does have a resureccted body.

[dberrie2000]

The Father does not have a resurrected body, the Son does have a resureccted body.

Are you saying that God has a resurrected body?

note to lurkers: Billyray nor anyone else here that is faith alone is going to answer this question--for obvious reasons. Diversion is all one will get here.

[Billyray]

Are you saying that God has a resurrected body?


God the Father does not have a resurrected body, God the Son has a resurrected body.

[Billyray]

note to lurkers: Billyray nor anyone else here that is faith alone is going to answer this question--for obvious reasons. Diversion is all one will get here.

Note to lurkers I have already answered this questions multiple times but DB is in his circling mode and gets like this by asking the same question of a variatiion over and over again. Seems to be a glitch is his matrix.

[dberrie2000]

Note to lurkers I have already answered this questions multiple times but DB is in his circling mode and gets like this by asking the same question of a variatiion over and over again. Seems to be a glitch is his matrix.

No! You have not--and you won't fool a single lurker with that post.

Do you believe that God has a resurrected body?

It's a yes or no answer. Diversion into the persons of the Godhead will not answer the question.

There is but one God--either He has a resurrected body or He does not. We know about the persons.

[Billyray]

No! You have not--and you won't fool a single lurker with that post.

Do you believe that God has a resurrected body?



Sure I have answered your question and I will answer it again one more time for you. Perhaps you will get it this time.

God the Father does not have a resurrected body, God the Son has a resurrected body.

[Billyray]

There is but one God--either He has a resurrected body or He does not.

And why do you say that?

[dberrie2000]

Sure I have answered your question and I will answer it again one more time for you. Perhaps you will get it this time.

God the Father does not have a resurrected body, God the Son has a resurrected body.

You only thing you do with those posts is show the faith alone belief to be ambiguous.

You list God there in both the Father and the Son.

You ***ign one a resurrected body and one without a resurrected body.

But yet--you believe they are the same God.

If they are the same God--they have the same substance--as the Trinitarian doctrine states--the "****ousious God".

Billyray--****ousious means same substance. A resurrected Body for God and God not having a resurrected body is not only contrary to a ****ousious God--it is downright contradictory.

[Billyray]

Billyray--****ousious means same substance.

That is a term that is not in the Bible and I never use that term. Why don't we stick with what we have in the Bible. God the Father is God, God the Son is God, and God the HS is God. And there only one God.

[dberrie2000]

That is a term that is not in the Bible and I never use that term.

Oh, but the Trinitarian creed does. That was the very heart and soul of Trinitarianism.

You do use the tern "same essence--do you not?

Where do you find that in the Bible?



Why don't we stick with what we have in the Bible.

Because if we did--the faith alone theology would disappear, as there is not the first mention of any such term in any Bible the faith alone use.

In fact--the closest thing we have of faith alone in any translation the faith alone use is this:

James2:24--" Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."



God the Father is God, God the Son is God, and God the HS is God. And there only one God.

If there is only one God--then why are you ***igning both a resurrected body and not a resurrected to that one God?

[Billyray]

Oh, but the Trinitarian creed does. That was the very heart and soul of Trinitarianism.

You do use the tern "same essence--do you not?


Nope I personally don't use that term.

[Billyray]

Because if we did--the faith alone theology would disappear. . .


Why do you say that?

[Billyray]

James2:24--" Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

James 2
23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

Romans 4
4 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.


I am going to ***ume that you really want to know the truth. Given that ***umption please give me a summary statement such that the above sets of verses are both taken into account and both true as written.

[dberrie2000]

Billyray---That is a term that is not in the Bible and I never use that term. Why don't we stick with what we have in the Bible. God the Father is God, God the Son is God, and God the HS is God. And there only one God.


Billyray--you use the terms co-equal and co-eternal. Where do you find those terms in the Bible?

[Billyray]

Billyray--you use the terms co-equal and co-eternal. Where do you find those terms in the Bible?

Philipians 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

[Billyray]

Billyray--you use the terms co-equal and co-eternal. Where do you find those terms in the Bible?

Now lets look at YOUR heretical views of God.

Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Tell me what this verse says.

[dberrie2000]

Philipians 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

And where is co-eternal?

[Billyray]

And where is co-eternal?
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.

[dberrie2000]

Now lets look at YOUR heretical views of God.

Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Tell me what this verse says.

Just what Michael states:

1. The plural ʾĕlōhîm of Psalm 82:1, 6 are divine beings, not human judges or humans fulfilling any role.

2. The term monotheism is inadequate to describe what it is Israel believed about God and the members of his council. As the text explicitly says, there are other ʾĕlōhîm.

3. References to "us" and "our" in p***ages like Genesis 1:26 do not refer to the Trinity. The plural ʾĕlōhîm of Psalm 82 are also not members of the Trinity.

4. The denial statements of Isaiah and elsewhere ("there is no god beside me") do not cons***ute denials of the existence of other ʾĕlōhîm. Rather, they are statements of Yahweh's incomparability.

[Billyray]

4. The denial statements of Isaiah and elsewhere ("there is no god beside me") do not cons***ute denials of the existence of other ʾĕlōhîm. Rather, they are statements of Yahweh's incomparability.

Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Tell me what this verse says.

[dberrie2000]

Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Tell me what this verse says.


dberrie----Just what Michael states:

1. The plural ʾĕlōhîm of Psalm 82:1, 6 are divine beings, not human judges or humans fulfilling any role.

2. The term monotheism is inadequate to describe what it is Israel believed about God and the members of his council. As the text explicitly says, there are other ʾĕlōhîm.

3. References to "us" and "our" in p***ages like Genesis 1:26 do not refer to the Trinity. The plural ʾĕlōhîm of Psalm 82 are also not members of the Trinity.

4. The denial statements of Isaiah and elsewhere ("there is no god beside me") do not cons***ute denials of the existence of other ʾĕlōhîm. Rather, they are statements of Yahweh's incomparability.


How is there no Gods beside Jesus Christ--and the divine council consisting of a number of Gods?

1. The plural ʾĕlōhîm of Psalm 82:1, 6 are divine beings, not human judges or humans fulfilling any role.

What is it about plural Elohim that we are not getting?

Michael Heiser addressed the issue about your question--I posted it.

What is your answer to the Hebrew Bible having numerous Elohim in the divine council?

[Billyray]

How is there no Gods beside Jesus Christ--and the divine council consisting of a number of Gods?


Focus brother berrie you are losing your train of thought. We wern't speaking about Psalm 82 were were in Isaiah 43

Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Tell me what this verse says.

[dberrie2000]

Focus brother berrie you are losing your train of thought. We wern't speaking about Psalm 82 were were in Isaiah 43

Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Tell me what this verse says.

It states there is but one God--no others.

And this is the "one God" of the NT:

1 Cor8:6--"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

So--was that Jesus Christ speaking in Isaiah--or God the Father?

Since Jesus Christ had a God--was that God formed before Him--or after?

[Billyray]

It states there is but one God--no others.

Great you are making progress. Since you are a polytheist then tell me who is this one God? Then tell me who are the others who are NOT a God?

[TrueBlue?]

Focus brother berrie you are losing your train of thought. We wern't speaking about Psalm 82 were were in Isaiah 43

Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Tell me what this verse says.

Iranaeus has explained it very well


And thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: He who is, hath sent me unto you;” (Exo_3:14) and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God. And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, “I am come down to deliver this people.” (Exo_3:8) For it is He who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself — He who is, the Father bearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father. — As also Esaias says, “I too am witness,” he declares, “saith the Lord God, and the Son whom I have chosen, that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am.” (Isa_43:10)


Once again reading the scriptures as the Jews did so as the Jews, you cannot recognize truly who Christ is and in effect shout with the Pharisees "Cruficy Him" because you try and strip away His Iden***y along with the Fathers.

Joh_17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The Early Church Fathers of the first century understood the meaning of this verse and the nature of God, because they were taught by the ones who wrote the verses. They conversed with them. They were able to ask the questions we speak of here and receive answers straight from the mouths of the Apostles on issues like this. Something some of us could only dream of. This is something that one of those Fathers has stated about the doctrine you are spewing forth.


Irenaeus - Wherefore I do also call upon thee, Lord God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel, who art the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of Thy mercy, hast had a favour towards us, that we should know Thee, who hast made heaven and earth, who rulest over all, who art the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God; grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the Holy Spirit; give to every reader of this book to know Thee, that Thou art God alone, to be strengthened in Thee, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine

He understood who the Only True God was, and that Jesus was a God, but second to Our Father, with Our Father being the Only True God.

[Billyray]

He understood who the Only True God was, and that Jesus was a God, but second to Our Father, with Our Father being the Only True God.

Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.


So you believe that this verse is teaching that the Father is the only true God and since you believe that the Father, Son, and HS are separate and distinct you must also believe that the Son and the HS are false Gods. Is that what you really believe?

[TrueBlue?]

[/B]
Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.


So you believe that this verse is teaching that the Father is the only true God and since you believe that the Father, Son, and HS are separate and distinct you must also believe that the Son and the HS are false Gods. Is that what you really believe?

You can try and put words in my mouth that I have never spoken all you want Billyray, but the more I read of your posts the more I see you care nothing for truth. I truly wonder if you truly believe in this false God that you espouse. Me thinks you are only on here to find fault with Mormons because of some deep hatred. I have never seen anyone throw scripture under the bus as often as you have. Never have I seen anyone bare false witness of others as much as you have. With no diginity to yourself, you take things to the tenth degree no matter how ******** it makes you appear.

Are you saying that you believe that Iranaeus believes that Christ and the Holy Ghost are false Gods? Do you believe that the Apostles, because of there written testimony of the One True God is believes that Christ is a false God?

[Billyray]

You can try and put words in my mouth that I have never spoken all you want Billyray, but the more I read of your posts the more I see you care nothing for truth.

Here is the section of your post that I quoted.


.
He understood who the Only True God was, and that Jesus was a God, but second to Our Father, with Our Father being the Only True God.

What does ONLY true God mean to you?

[jdjhere]

TrueBlue stated (rather emphatically): "but the more I read of your posts the more I see you care nothing for truth. I truly wonder if you truly believe in this false God that you espouse. Me thinks ?? you are only on here to find fault with Mormons because of some deep hatred. I have never seen anyone throw scripture under the bus as often as you have. Never have I seen anyone bare false witness of others as much as you have. With no diginity to yourself, you take things to the tenth degree no matter how ******** it makes you appear.

Wow, TrueBlue. I would say that is a pretty nasty, hostile response to BillyRay who is just defending 1st century Christianity. Why do you have to make a personal attack on BillyRays character but not address his questions? He has a right to believe what he believes every bit as much as you do so why the hostility?

[dberrie2000]

Great you are making progress. Since you are a polytheist then tell me who is this one God?


1 Cor8:6--"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."


If one were to believe the scriptures--it was God the Father. The "one lord" was Jesus Christ.

Was Paul a polytheist?

The NT writers, nor the Early Church Fathers, for the main, believed Jesus Christ was the "one God".

For them, God the Father was the only one God--and only God the Father. No other one God but Him.

[Billyray]

It states there is but one God--no others.


Great you are making progress. Since you are a polytheist then tell me who is this one God? Then tell me who are the others who are NOT a God?




For them, God the Father was the only one God--and only God the Father. No other one God but Him.
so you don't believe Jesus is a God or the HS is a God?

[Snow Patrol]

TrueBlue, you need to lighten up on the criticism here.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000
It states there is but one God--no others.


Originally Posted by Billyray
Great you are making progress. Since you are a polytheist then tell me who is this one God? Then tell me who are the others who are NOT a God?


Originally Posted by dberrie2000 --1 Cor8:6--"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."


If one were to believe the scriptures--it was God the Father. The "one lord" was Jesus Christ.

Was Paul a polytheist?

The NT writers, nor the Early Church Fathers, for the main, believed Jesus Christ was the "one God".

For them, God the Father was the only one God--and only God the Father. No other one God but Him.



so you don't believe Jesus is a God or the HS is a God?

I am stating what the NT writers believed concerning the "one God"--how are you relating that to whether I believe Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost is a God?

The LDS believe in the Godhead:

1) God the Father
2) God the Son
3) God the Holy Ghost.


But you know that---we have discussed this several times now.

The NT writers believed that Jesus Christ was a God--but not the "one God". That designation was reserved for the Father only.

So--how do you explain Paul's designation of God the Father as the "one God"--separating out Jesus Christ within the same sentence as the "one Lord"?

If Jesus Christ and God the Father were the same God--surely Paul would have known it. It would be the perfect chance to designate Jesus Christ and God the Father as the "one God".

Paul let that opportunity p***, and not for no reason. And on more than one occasion did Paul do so:


Ephesians4:4-6--"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

Why?

[RealFakeHair]

I am stating what the NT writers believed

Ephesians4:4-6--"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

Why?

See how easy that was dberrie, just took out the Gods and made you a Baptist or something.:eek:

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000
I am stating what the NT writers believed

Ephesians4:4-6--"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

Why?



See how easy that was dberrie, just took out the Gods and made you a Baptist or something.:eek:


Baptist wouldn't list the "one God" as God the Father, and separate out Jesus Christ from that "one God"--into another separate designation--the "one Lord".

[Billyray]

I am stating what the NT writers believed concerning the "one God"--how are you relating that to whether I believe Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost is a God?


Because of what you said

It states there is but one God--no others.

If there is ONE God and no others can Jesus or the Holy Spirit be a God?

[RealFakeHair]

Baptist wouldn't list the "one God" as God the Father, and separate out Jesus Christ from that "one God"--into another separate designation--the "one Lord".

There are three persons in the Godhead, The Father and The Son and The Holy Ghost.
The simple way of putting it is, this, God The Father, Old Testament.
Jesus the Son, New Testament.
The Holy Ghost is what we have to direct us and lead us and comfort us in Christ Jesus, Amen!
Now see how easy that is?

[dberrie2000]

Because of what you said

If there is ONE God and no others can Jesus or the Holy Spirit be a God?

Of course--but not the "one God"--that designation was reserved for God the Father only in the NT.

It was the NT writers, and the ECF way of remaining a monotheist, and believing that more Gods existed than the Father. Which meant the object of their worship was God the Father.

[Billyray]

Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Tell me what this verse says.

It states there is but one God--no others.


Of course--but not the "one God"--that designation was reserved for God the Father only in the NT.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Let's start over. Explain what Isaiah 43:10 means.

[dberrie2000]

This doesn't make any sense to me. Let's start over. Explain what Isaiah 43:10 means.

It means just what Michael Heiser points out:


4. The denial statements of Isaiah and elsewhere ("there is no god beside me") do not cons***ute denials of the existence of other ʾĕlōhîm. Rather, they are statements of Yahweh's incomparability.

If it was Jesus Christ that makes these statements--do you believe there was no God the Father? That Jesus Christ was formed before God the Father?

Billyray--there is one reality the faith alone have to come to--there were a number of Gods in the Hebrew Bible, found within the divine council, and also, including the Godhead--that is a fact.

And the NT writers, and the ECF both separated out God the Father as the "one God"--and Jesus Christ as the "one Lord".

Sorry that does not collate with the faith alone theology--but very little does, when comparing the Bible and faith alone theology.

[Billyray]

It means just what Michael Heiser points out:


4. The denial statements of Isaiah and elsewhere ("there is no god beside me") do not cons***ute denials of the existence of other ʾĕlōhîm. Rather, they are statements of Yahweh's incomparability.


Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

How do you come to that conclusion from this verse?

[Billyray]

If it was Jesus Christ that makes these statements--do you believe there was no God the Father? That Jesus Christ was formed before God the Father?


One God in three persons. So your questions don't make any sense.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000
It means just what Michael Heiser points out:


4. The denial statements of Isaiah and elsewhere ("there is no god beside me") do not cons***ute denials of the existence of other ʾĕlōhîm. Rather, they are statements of Yahweh's incomparability.




Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

How do you come to that conclusion from this verse?


As Michael Heiser points out:

2. The term monotheism is inadequate to describe what it is Israel believed about God and the members of his council. As the text explicitly says, there are other ʾĕlōhîm.


Could you explain how Jesus Christ makes the statement there was no God formed before Him--and the existence of God the Father?

How did Jesus have a God and Father--and there was none besides Him?

[Billyray]

As Michael Heiser points out:

2. The term monotheism is inadequate to describe what it is Israel believed about God and the members of his council. As the text explicitly says, there are other ʾĕlōhîm.



Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Can you tell me how you came to the conclusion that there are other gods from this verse. Thus far you have not done so.

[Billyray]

Could you explain how Jesus Christ makes the statement there was no God formed before Him--and the existence of God the Father?

Your question doesn't really make sense because the one God is in three persons. So when Christ speaks about one God that would include the three persons.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000
Could you explain how Jesus Christ makes the statement there was no God formed before Him--and the existence of God the Father?



Your question doesn't really make sense because the one God is in three persons.

You mean it does not make sense to those of the faith alone theology?

Where in the Bible do you see the three that make up the Godhead specifically listed as the "one God"?

There are scriptures that specifically list the composition of them "one God"--and it does not include Jesus Christ:

1 Cor8:6--"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."



So when Christ speaks about one God that would include the three persons.

Christ did not claim to be the same person as God the Father. His claim was that God the Father was His God and Father:

St John20:17--"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

Which was confirmed by Peter:

1 Peter1:3--"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"

That was the NT belief of the Godhead--and the ECF.

[Billyray]

You mean it does not make sense to those of the faith alone theology?

No it doesn't make sense because there is one God in three persons. So if Jesus is speaking it doesn't mean that there is no longer the Father and the Son and the three persons of the single God.

[Billyray]

Christ did not claim to be the same person as God the Father.

Are you trying to show your i gnorance?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000
Could you explain how Jesus Christ makes the statement there was no God formed before Him--and the existence of God the Father?


Originally Posted by Billyray
Your question doesn't really make sense because the one God is in three persons.



dberrie----You mean it does not make sense to those of the faith alone theology?

Where in the Bible do you see the three that make up the Godhead specifically listed as the "one God"?

There are scriptures that specifically list the composition of them "one God"--and it does not include Jesus Christ:

1 Cor8:6--"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."



No it doesn't make sense because there is one God in three persons.

Again--where in the Biblical text does it list three persons as the "one God"?

There are scriptures that specifically defines who the "one God" is--and it does not list but one person there--God the Father:

Ephesians4:4-6--"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."


Could you explain for us how this scripture separates out Jesus Christ from God the Father, as pertaining to the "one God", and designates only God the Father as the "one God"--and your premise be true concerning three persons in the "one God"?

Could you please show us anywhere it specifically designates all three persons as the "one God"?

[Billyray]

Could you explain for us how this scripture separates out Jesus Christ from God the Father, as pertaining to the "one God", and designates only God the Father as the "one God"--and your premise be true concerning three persons in the "one God"?

Sure it is a way to distinguish the different members of the Trinity.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 -- Again--where in the Biblical text does it list three persons as the "one God"?

There are scriptures that specifically defines who the "one God" is--and it does not list but one person there--God the Father:

Ephesians4:4-6--"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

Could you explain for us how this scripture separates out Jesus Christ from God the Father, as pertaining to the "one God", and designates only God the Father as the "one God"--and your premise be true concerning three persons in the "one God"?



Sure it is a way to distinguish the different members of the Trinity.

You are right--and the NT distinguishes only God the Father as the "one God".

[Billyray]

You are right--and the NT distinguishes only God the Father as the "one God".

And the Son as "one LORD" who is the second person of the Trinity.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000
You are right--and the NT distinguishes only God the Father as the "one God".


[QUOTE=Billyray;129277]And the Son as "one LORD" who is the second person of the Trinity.

The second personage of the Godhead--the term "Trinity" is not found within the Bible.


The Biblical Term Godhead

Versus the Term "Trinity"

by Bob Allgood

An Effort To Contend For The Faith

Once Delivered Unto The Saints




All three of these declarations are very good, but I personally prefer the first two over the last. I could not help but notice that each of the statements became more condensed and less elaborate about the attributes of the Godhead. Is this a sign of the times? In some our modern day Articles of Faith the statements of belief are so concise that it is hard to determine exactly what the Primitive Baptists authors are trying to say or really believe. To illustrate this I will quote from a common Articles of Faith I have seen copied (without change) and used in Colorado and NM:

" We believe in one true and living God and the trinity of persons in the Godhead - Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and yet not three but one God ".

I'll be as kind as possible, but in my opinion, this last declaration is a weak and confusing statement about the Godhead. It is weak because there are no Biblical comments about the attributes of God. It is confusing because it says "We believe in -- God and the trinity of persons in the Godhead". The phrase "trinity of persons in the Godhead" is unbiblical terminology which conflicts with and/or directly contradicts Scripture. It shows how easily confusion and error can get into our doctrine through ignorance, apathy, slothfulness and/or failure to "study and rightly divide the word of truth". I have the "little white book" from which this statement was taken word for word and p***ed on to at least three churches. In this we can see how the error of one can afflict others. As Solomon said, "Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good".

[Billyray]

The second personage of the Godhead--the term "Trinity" is not found within the Bible.


Sure it is a way to distinguisthe Father from the Son in those verses.

Can "Lord" refer to the Father in some verses and the Son in other verses?

Can "God" refer to the Father in some verses and the Son in other verses?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000
The second personage of the Godhead--the term "Trinity" is not found within the Bible.


Sure it is a way to distinguisthe Father from the Son in those verses.

Not "Trinity". That term is not found within the Bible.


Can "Lord" refer to the Father in some verses and the Son in other verses?

Can "God" refer to the Father in some verses and the Son in other verses?

Well, of course. You don't think Christ would use the term "Gods" to designate those whom the word of God came--and it not also be applied to His own self? The term "Lord" was used to denote both the Father and the Son also.

But the term "one God" is never used to denote Jesus Christ in the NT--only God the Father.

[Billyray]

But the term "one God" is never used to denote Jesus Christ in the NT--only God the Father.

But the term "God" can be used for the Father or the Son and the term "Lord" can be used for the Father or the Son. These verses are using each to distinguish between the Father and the Son.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000
But the term "one God" is never used to denote Jesus Christ in the NT--only God the Father.



But the term "God" can be used for the Father or the Son

But that is also true for all the Sons of God that comprise the divinity of the divine council--they were all referred to as "Elohim".

They all took on the ***le "God" or "Gods".

[Billyray]

But that is also true for all the Sons of God that comprise the divinity of the divine council--they were all referred to as "Elohim".

So why do you take issue when God is used for the Father and Lord is use for the Son in the verses that you have brought up?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000
But that is also true for all the Sons of God that comprise the divinity of the divine council--they were all referred to as "Elohim".




So why do you take issue when God is used for the Father and Lord is use for the Son in the verses that you have brought up?


Duh! I don't take issue with that--only when someone tries to pawn on me they were the same God. They were not the same Gods within the council.

They were all referred to as Elohim, or the sons of God--but that is a designation ***le, not a personal identification.

[Billyray]

Duh! I don't take issue with that--only when someone tries to pawn on me they were the same God. They were not the same Gods within the council.
.
You don't even know who were in the council do you?

[Billyray]

Duh! I don't take issue with that--only when someone tries to pawn on me they were the same God.

Yet you would agree that Jehovah is both the Father and the Son. Correct?

[dberrie2000]

Yet you would agree that Jehovah is both the Father and the Son. Correct?

No. I would not. Not speaking of God the Father and God the Son.And neither are the sons of God that were part of the divine council Jesus Christ either.

They were all separate Gods.

[Billyray]

No. I would not.

So you don't believe that the Father and the Son can be called Jehovah?

[dberrie2000]

So you don't believe that the Father and the Son can be called Jehovah?

The LDS believe that Jehovah is Jesus Christ, as Paul explains:

1 Cor10:1-4--"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ********, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all p***ed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

[Billyray]

The LDS believe that Jehovah is Jesus Christ, as Paul explains:

When you see LORD in the OT you believe that this is Jehovah right?

[BigJulie]

When you see LORD in the OT you believe that this is Jehovah right?

In the OT, there is no distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ. That distinction does not come until the NT.

That is why OT writers would sometimes change the word "Lord" to "Elohim" because they did not want to say "Lord" twice in a row---it was ackward--and they would orate the word "YHWH" as Lord.

[Billyray]

In the OT, there is no distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ. That distinction does not come until the NT.

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


So you don't see a distinction between the Father and Son in this verse given the fact that is clearly mentions a "child is born"?

[BigJulie]

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


So you don't see a distinction between the Father and Son in this verse given the fact that is clearly mentions a "child is born"?

Yes---this is speaking of Christ---but, if you were to say "LORD" in the OT, it would be addressing both the Father and the Son. Prophesies of Christ aside, when the Israelites were commanded from their "LORD God"---there would be no distinction.

One way you can know that these ***les are not speaking of the OT---is it says He shall be CALLED...at some future time.

[Billyray]

Yes---this is speaking of Christ--

So there is a distinction and what you said was wrong then. Correct?

[Billyray]

but, if you were to say "LORD" in the OT, it would be addressing both the Father and the Son.

So Jehovah was both the Father and the Son depending on the verse. Right?

[BigJulie]

So Jehovah was both the Father and the Son depending on the verse. Right?

In the OT, the Jews did not recognize the Son.

[Billyray]

In the OT, the Jews did not recognize the Son.
But that is not what I asked. I asked if Jehovah can refer to both the Father and the Son depending on the verse?

[dberrie2000]

But that is not what I asked. I asked if Jehovah can refer to both the Father and the Son depending on the verse?

And I gave you an answer to this question--the LDS stance is that Jehovah is Jesus Christ.

[Billyray]

And I gave you an answer to this question--the LDS stance is that Jehovah is Jesus Christ.

So your answer is no and BigJ's answer will be yes.

[dberrie2000]

So your answer is no and BigJ's answer will be yes.


I don't speak for BJ--but the LDS stance is Jesus Christ--which is what Paul taught:


1 Cor10:1-4--"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ********, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all p***ed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

[Billyray]

I don't speak for BJ--but the LDS stance is Jesus Christ--which is what Paul taught:


So LORD (in all caps) in the OT exclusively speaks of Christ. Correct?

[dberrie2000]

So LORD (in all caps) in the OT exclusively speaks of Christ. Correct?

I have no idea, there is continuing debate about that subject.

But one thing is not as debated--there were numerous Gods in the divine council. They were referred to as Elohim, or sons of God, or both. They were a heavenly host.

That is all that is needed to destroy the faith alone Trinitarian theology. If that is true--faith alone theology is false--end of story.

[Billyray]

--there were numerous Gods in the divine council.

Who are these gods in the divine council in Psalm 82?

[BigJulie]

Who are these gods in the divine council in Psalm 82?

Which ones---in the first verse it speaks to all divine beings (angels, etc)---and then later it speaks of those who have been called as judges and rulers.

[Billyray]

Which ones---in the first verse it speaks to all divine beings (angels, etc)---and then later it speaks of those who have been called as judges and rulers.

You seem to differ from DB on this. So in verse 1 the gods are you spiritual brothers?

[Billyray]

---and then later it speaks of those who have been called as judges and rulers.

and these are simply unrighteous humans?

[BigJulie]

and these are simply unrighteous humans?

whom God calls judges and rulers. Do you think the angels you are to judge in the next life are "unrighteous angels" are part of this council as well?

[Billyray]

whom God calls judges and rulers.

Which are mere humans correct?

[Billyray]

Do you think the angels you are to judge in the next life are "unrighteous angels" are part of this council as well?

There are not angels in Psalm 82.

[BigJulie]

There are not angels in Psalm 82.

The word "elohim" is also translated as "angels" in the OT.

1) (plural)

a) rulers, judges

b) divine ones

c) angels

d) gods


Why are you insistent that the "gods" spoken of in this council which God rules is "rulers and judges" but not angels?

[Billyray]

Why are you insistent that the "gods" spoken of in this council which God rules is "rulers and judges" but not angels?

Because of context

[BigJulie]

Because of context

In the context, there is nothing to say that in verse 1, God narrowly defines His council as only human judges and rulers. You might narrowly define God that way, but the Bible doesn't.

[Billyray]

In the context, there is nothing to say that in verse 1, God narrowly defines His council as only human judges and rulers. You might narrowly define God that way, but the Bible doesn't.
Read the surrounding verses.

[BigJulie]

Read the surrounding verses.

Even reading the surrounding verses. The first verse makes a broad definition of who God is. If you don't think He rules the angels---well, I disagree.

[Billyray]

Even reading the surrounding verses. The first verse makes a broad definition of who God is. If you don't think He rules the angels---well, I disagree.

Even Talmage understood that these were human judges.



James Talmage "Jesus the Christ"
"Plainly they had found no ambiguity in His words. He then cited to them the scriptures, wherein even judges empowered by divine authority are called gods, 9 and asked: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken: say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

[BigJulie]

Even Talmage understood that these were human judges.

I think he is speaking of Psalms 82:6 not Psalms 82:1 which speaks to who God is and that He rules the divine council (which is in no way limited to only human judges.)

[Billyray]

I think he is speaking of Psalms 82:6 not Psalms 82:1 which speaks to who God is and that He rules the divine council (which is in no way limited to only human judges.)

When reading the Psalm in contex why do you think the gods in verse 1 are different than the gods in verse 6?

[BigJulie]

When reading the Psalm in contex why do you think the gods in verse 1 are different than the gods in verse 6?

Because it is a broad declaration in verse 1 of who God is. Why would you think that the mighty is ONLY the judges especially in light that they were being wicked at the time---why on earth would God call then "mighty" then?

[Billyray]

Because it is a broad declaration in verse 1 of who God is.

1*God presides in the great ***embly he renders judgment among the “gods”:

I am speaking about "among the gods". Why do you think that these are different gods than in verse 6 when reading the entire Psalm in contex?

[BigJulie]

1*God presides in the great ***embly he renders judgment among the “gods”:

I am speaking about "among the gods". Why do you think that these are different gods than in verse 6 when reading the entire Psalm in contex?

In reading the entire text of Psalms 82....in verse one, it is clearly a broad definition that God rules all rulers, in heaven and on earth.

Isa 24:21 ¶ And it shall come to p*** in that day, [that] the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones [that are] on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.

Psalms 82:6 lend one to believe that those who are ruling on earth are not doing a good ***. Hence, he rules all---you children of the Most High God who have been called by Him are not doing.

Who do you think is being referred to at the end of the verse:

Psa 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Who is going to "inherit" all nations?

[Billyray]

In reading the entire text of Psalms 82....in verse one, it is clearly a broad definition that God rules all rulers, in heaven and on earth.


It doesn't say that in context at all.

[BigJulie]

It doesn't say that in context at all.

Yes it does.

[Billyray]

Yes it does.

Lets look at it verse by verse then.

[BigJulie]

Lets look at it verse by verse then.

Okay......................

[Billyray]

Okay......................

A psalm of Asaph.

1 God presides in the great ***embly; he renders judgment among the “gods”:
2 How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;

Who are the "you" in verse 2?

[BigJulie]

A psalm of Asaph.

1 God presides in the great ***embly; he renders judgment among the “gods”:
2 How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;

Who are the "you" in verse 2?

Who is in the "great ***embly"---are there only human judges and rulers?

[Russianwolfe]

I think he is speaking of Psalms 82:6 not Psalms 82:1 which speaks to who God is and that He rules the divine council (which is in no way limited to only human judges.)

And don't forget that Talmadge quote is over 75 years old. He didn't have the benefit of all the research and discovery that has gone on since he wrote those words. Even Nibley said he could not be held accountable for anything he said or wrote over 10 years before.

Marvin

[Billyray]

And don't forget that Talmadge quote is over 75 years old. He didn't have the benefit of all the research and discovery that has gone on since he wrote those words. Even Nibley said he could not be held accountable for anything he said or wrote over 10 years before.

Marvin

So much for having confidence in your inspired leaders.

[Russianwolfe]

So much for having confidence in your inspired leaders.

He died in 1933. He belongs to a past era and his writings reflect the learning and wisdom of that time. We have learned a lot more in the 79 years since his death. I would hope that we would apply that learning to our faith. We don't think that God stopped talking 2,000 years ago, like you do.

Marvin

[Billyray]

He died in 1933.

Joseph died well before that is his stuff still considered accurate?

[Russianwolfe]

Joseph died well before that is his stuff still considered accurate?

No, as far as his personal opinions and learning of the day.

But the revelations he received and the scriptures that he wrote, yes, absolutely.

Marvin

[James Banta]

He died in 1933. He belongs to a past era and his writings reflect the learning and wisdom of that time. We have learned a lot more in the 79 years since his death. I would hope that we would apply that learning to our faith. We don't think that God stopped talking 2,000 years ago, like you do.

Marvin

God didn't know all things 79 years ago? Or is it that prophets weren't real prophets 79 years ago? OR MAYBE, like today, LDS prophets rely only on themselves and not on revelations from God... IHS jim

[akaSeerone]

God didn't know all things 79 years ago? Or is it that prophets weren't real prophets 79 years ago? OR MAYBE, like today, LDS prophets rely only on themselves and not on revelations from God... IHS jimI find it very telling how the Mormons here pretend to know what Christianity teaches while there is nothing whatsoever Christian about Mormonism, yet they falsely try to pawn themselves of as being more Christian than what we Holy and True Christians actually are.

What makes them think they can get away with proclaiming themselves to be the true Christians and us Holy Christians the false ones when we have proven Mormonism to be false and Smith a false prophet over and over and over almost since the day Smith vomited out his unholy "religion?"

I mean, after all, we are the ones that line up with God's one and only Standard, the Bible, while they add to the Bible, twist Scripture and take it out of context beyond recognition and then hopelessly try to use it against us and proving to everyone just how Satanic Mormonism is and how false of a religion Mormonism is while pretending all the while that Smith was a Prophet of God rather than acknowledging that he has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever to be a false prophet and lying con man that only pretended to hear from God making me think, because of how far from the truth he was, that he most likely didn't even believe in God.

After all, who in their right mind would stick their neck out like Smith did pretending he was visited by God and making God the Father/God the Son/God the Holy Spirit (The Triune God) a liar, knowing good and well that God would surely punish him greatly for lying about everything he lied about if he actually believed in God?

But, then again, all of us here know that Smith lied and conned so much, he must have believed his own cons and lies, deceiving himself and causing his sanity to be extremely questionable.

Say Hi to the Mrs. for me and my wife,

Your Brother in Christ Jesus,

Brother Andrew

[James Banta]

[akaSeerone;132385]I find it very telling how the Mormons here pretend to know what Christianity teaches while there is nothing whatsoever Christian about Mormonism, yet they falsely try to pawn themselves of as being more Christian than what we Holy and True Christians actually are.

You are as always correct.. We must add that the ONLY reason we are Holy and true is because Jesus is Holy and true and He imputes His righteousness on us because of our faith in Him and not because we are better that others..


What makes them think they can get away with proclaiming themselves to be the true Christians and us Holy Christians the false ones when we have proven Mormonism to be false and Smith a false prophet over and over and over almost since the day Smith vomited out his unholy "religion?"

I mean, after all, we are the ones that line up with God's one and only Standard, the Bible, while they add to the Bible, twist Scripture and take it out of context beyond recognition and then hopelessly try to use it against us and proving to everyone just how Satanic Mormonism is and how false of a religion Mormonism is while pretending all the while that Smith was a Prophet of God rather than acknowledging that he has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever to be a false prophet and lying con man that only pretended to hear from God making me think, because of how far from the truth he was, that he most likely didn't even believe in God.

After all, who in their right mind would stick their neck out like Smith did pretending he was visited by God and making God the Father/God the Son/God the Holy Spirit (The Triune God) a liar, knowing good and well that God would surely punish him greatly for lying about everything he lied about if he actually believed in God?

But, then again, all of us here know that Smith lied and conned so much, he must have believed his own cons and lies, deceiving himself and causing his sanity to be extremely questionable.

And except for the grace of God we would be like them or be completely Godless as is most of the people of the world..


Say Hi to the Mrs. for me and my wife,

Your Brother in Christ Jesus,

Brother Andrew


Just did, you remain in our prayers and our hearts.. IHS jim

[akaSeerone]

You are as always correct.. We must add that the ONLY reason we are Holy and true is because Jesus is Holy and true and He imputes His righteousness on us because of our faith in Him and not because we are better that others..Amen to that.

And the writer of Hebrews agrees with what we are saying:

Hebrews 10

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world,(J) he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;(K)
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll(L)—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a](M)

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”(N)—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.”(O)

He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy(P) through the sacrifice of the body(Q) of Jesus Christ once for all.(R)


11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices,(S) which can never take away sins.(T) 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins,(U) he sat down at the right hand of God,(V) 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool.(W)

14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect(X) forever those who are being made holy.(Y)

15 The Holy Spirit also testifies(Z) to us about this. First he says:

16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”[b](AA)

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”[c](AB)

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

Not only does this teach us that we are made Holy through Jesus Christ, it also refutes a number of other things that Mormonism teaches. Amen

Brother Andrew

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe View Post
And don't forget that Talmadge quote is over 75 years old. He didn't have the benefit of all the research and discovery that has gone on since he wrote those words. Even Nibley said he could not be held accountable for anything he said or wrote over 10 years before.


So much for having confidence in your inspired leaders.

So--would you apply that same reasoning to Jesus? :

St Mark4:31--"It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:"

[Billyray]

DB did you get banned again on CARM?

What did you do this time?

[dberrie2000]

DB did you get banned again on CARM?

Yes. I get banned about every 4-5 days. 7 days this time.


What did you do this time?

The same thing I do here--present Biblical arguments that dispels any truth to the faith alone theology.

CARM won't allow any LDS to do that. Jill tolerates it here.

[James Banta]

Yes. I get banned about every 4-5 days. 7 days this time.



The same thing I do here--present Biblical arguments that dispels any truth to the faith alone theology.

CARM won't allow any LDS to do that. Jill tolerates it here.



I have yet to see one Biblical argument you put forth here about any subject that is peculiarly LDS.. NOT One.. Not three degrees of glory, not three separate Gods, not a man being a god in embryo. Nothing you have said about priesthood, it's purpose or who may hold it is Biblical. Nothing about the nature of God nor His origin is Biblical.. You just haven't shown much of anything about mormonism that is Biblical.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

The same thing I do here--present Biblical arguments that dispels any truth to the faith alone theology.


So you are telling me that you didn't break a rule?

[BigJulie]

DB did you get banned again on CARM?

What did you do this time?

Change of subject here? A question meant to derail?? :D :D

[Billyray]

Change of subject here? A question meant to derail??

He is a rule breaker. I was wondering which rule he broke this time.

[Libby]

He is a rule breaker. I was wondering which rule he broke this time.

I don't see dberrie as a "rule breaker". CARM is very biased against LDS, so it doesn't surprise me that they get banned often, for next to nothing. I've even been banned from there a couple of times....the only board of the many boards I post on, from which I have ever been banned.

I know that you have been banned from this board, at least, once, Billyray. Are you a "rule breaker", as well?

[Billyray]

I don't see dberrie as a "rule breaker". CARM is very biased against LDS, so it doesn't surprise me that they get banned often, for next to nothing.

So you believe that he was banned without breaking a rule?

[BigJulie]

I don't see dberrie as a "rule breaker". CARM is very biased against LDS, so it doesn't surprise me that they get banned often, for next to nothing. I've even been banned from there a couple of times....the only board of the many boards I post on, from which I have ever been banned.

I know that you have been banned from this board, at least, once, Billyray. Are you a "rule breaker", as well?

Libby, CARM is toxic that way. If you want to see what true oppression looks like---look how Mormons are treated at CARM.

[Billyray]

Libby, CARM is toxic that way. If you want to see what true oppression looks like---look how Mormons are treated at CARM.

BigJ why don't you post on Carm? Perhaps you might awaken from your slumber.

BTW what do you think about the temple recordings?

I told you and Libby that as Mitt gets closer to becomming the president that Mormonism will get more and more exposed to what it really teaches--which of course is a good thing.

[BigJulie]

BigJ why don't you post on Carm? Perhaps you might awaken from your slumber.

BTW what do you think about the temple recordings?

I told you and Libby that as Mitt gets closer to becomming the president that Mormonism will get more and more exposed to what it really teaches--which of course is a good thing.

I have---decided it was an oppressive and toxic place.

I don't have any problem with more people learning about Mormonism. Many have an open mind.

[Billyray]

I don't have any problem with more people learning about Mormonism. Many have an open mind.

So putting videos of the temple ceremony is a good thing in your opinion since it helps people learn more about Mormonism?

[BigJulie]

So putting videos of the temple ceremony is a good thing in your opinion since it helps people learn more about Mormonism?

Billyray---and honest dialogue is fine. What you do here is something else. :eek:

[Billyray]

Billyray---and honest dialogue is fine. What you do here is something else.
So you have no problem having an open and honest dialogue about the temple ceremony?

[BigJulie]

So you have no problem having an open and honest dialogue about the temple ceremony?

It is not honest to trample the sacred teachings of others beliefs. As God says "the milk before the meat."

[Billyray]

It is not honest to trample the sacred teachings of others beliefs. As God says "the milk before the meat."
I thought you just said "honest dialogue is fine". Are you backtracking on that one now?

[BigJulie]

I thought you just said "honest dialogue is fine". Are you backtracking on that one now?

It is fine. It is dishonest to trample the sacred beliefs of others.

[Billyray]

It is fine. It is dishonest to trample the sacred beliefs of others.
We talk about the Bible ceremony which is sacred. Are you open to talk about the secret LDS ceremony?

[BigJulie]

We talk about the Bible ceremony which is sacred. Are you open to talk about the secret LDS ceremony?

You don't even know the Bible ceremony. Tell me the exact words the Levites used when sacrificing a lamb?

[Billyray]

You don't even know the Bible ceremony. Tell me the exact words the Levites used when sacrificing a lamb?
Since we can talk about the Bible temple ceremony which is sacred can we talk about the LDS ceremony?

[BigJulie]

Since we can talk about the Bible temple ceremony which is sacred can we talk about the LDS ceremony?

The Bible ceremony is no longer used. When we stop using the LDS ceremony--you are welcome to discuss it all you like. ;)

But as noted, you don't even know the wording of the Bible ceremonies.

[MacG]

[QUOTE=dberrie2000;128405]Whoa, hossy. You likened the Trinity to water in steam, ice, and liquid. I stated ok, but not at the same time." [QUOTE]

The triple point of water is three simultaenous forms of the same substance.

Just sayin it can happen to the substances in the world He created why would not something similar be true of Him?

[MacG]

Sorry, JD, but that dog just ain't gonna hunt. One cannot state that there are different persons as God, and ***ign them two different substances--one a physical body,(God the Son) and the other without a physical body(God the Father) and then state it is the same substance.

Unless you want to establish the fact, that as God, where they all combine--- there is only one--that they are of the same substance. In that case--is it a Spirit and a physical Body--or just a Spirit?




Christ not only "added" a body--He still has it. That means that Christ has a physical body and a Spirit--and God the Father has a Spirit only.

Does God have a physical body?

If God is Spirit why do you state the Father HAS a spirit?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Sorry, JD, but that dog just ain't gonna hunt. One cannot state that there are different persons as God, and ***ign them two different substances--one a physical body,(God the Son) and the other without a physical body(God the Father) and then state it is the same substance.

Unless you want to establish the fact, that as God, where they all combine--- there is only one--that they are of the same substance. In that case--is it a Spirit and a physical Body--or just a Spirit?




Christ not only "added" a body--He still has it. That means that Christ has a physical body and a Spirit--and God the Father has a Spirit only.

Does God have a physical body?



If God is Spirit why do you state the Father HAS a spirit?


Haggling with the term "has" is not going to solve the Trinitarian problem of ***igning different substances to a God they describe as a "****ousious" God.

Either God has, is, possesses---you choose the word you like---a body and a Spirit or He does not.

Taking Christ and stating that He has a Body of flesh and bones--and God the Father does not cannot amount to a ****ousious God.

If it does--can you explain how?

[dberrie2000]

I don't see dberrie as a "rule breaker". CARM is very biased against LDS, so it doesn't surprise me that they get banned often, for next to nothing. I've even been banned from there a couple of times....the only board of the many boards I post on, from which I have ever been banned.

I know that you have been banned from this board, at least, once, Billyray. Are you a "rule breaker", as well?

Thanks for the confidence, Libby. Billyray did no better there chasing me than he does here. CARM bans whomever they want to--they make their rules up as they go along.

[dberrie2000]

Whoa, hossy. You likened the Trinity to water in steam, ice, and liquid. I stated ok, but not at the same time." [QUOTE]

[QUOTE=MacG;133059]The triple point of water is three simultaenous forms of the same substance.

Just sayin it can happen to the substances in the world He created why would not something similar be true of Him?


Again--but not at the same time. The Bible, for instance, has God the Father and Jesus Christ at the same location at the same time, such as Matthew17.

[MacG]

[QUOTE=dberrie2000;128405]Whoa, hossy. You likened the Trinity to water in steam, ice, and liquid. I stated ok, but not at the same time." [QUOTE]




Again--but not at the same time. The Bible, for instance, has God the Father and Jesus Christ at the same location at the same time, such as Matthew17.

That is the meaning of simultaenous as demonstrated in the triple point...unless of course I have been misinformed.


Gas–liquid–solid triple pointMain article: Water (molecule)#Triple point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point#Other_triple_points_of_water_at_high_ pressure)
A typical phase diagram. The dotted green line gives the anomalous behaviour of waterThe single combination of pressure and temperature at which liquid water, solid ice, and water vapour can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurs at exactly 273.16 K (0.01 °C) and a partial vapour pressure of 611.73 pascals (ca. 6.1173 millibars, 0.0060373


The baptism has all three there at the same time.

[Billyray]

CARM bans whomever they want to--they make their rules up as they go along.
Weren't you breaking a rule by not linking back to original posts especially after you were told to do so by another poster?

[dberrie2000]

Weren't you breaking a rule by not linking back to original posts especially after you were told to do so by another poster?

I received no information to the such from a moderator.

As Knox showed--Alexandra did not link to the reference she had with her posts, if that is the poster you refer to who complained.

The forum is quite loose when it comes to such things. Things get stirred up when the faith alone discovered that I could not be put down. They vented in any way they could find--even if it meant they were proven hypocrites in doing so.

[dberrie2000]

[QUOTE=dberrie2000;133063][QUOTE=dberrie2000;128405]Whoa, hossy. You likened the Trinity to water in steam, ice, and liquid. I stated ok, but not at the same time."



That is the meaning of simultaenous as demonstrated in the triple point...unless of course I have been misinformed.

The baptism has all three there at the same time.

Which means that the water, steam, and ice is not a good ****ogy. They are not the same substance in all three states at the same time--it can only be one of the three, at the same time.

A "****ousious" God is just that--same substance.

Not friendly to Trinitarian doctrines.

[MacG]

Haggling with the term "has" is not going to solve the Trinitarian problem of ***igning different substances to a God they describe as a "****ousious" God.

Either God has, is, possesses---you choose the word you like---a body and a Spirit or He does not.

Taking Christ and stating that He has a Body of flesh and bones--and God the Father does not cannot amount to a ****ousious God.

If it does--can you explain how?

Haggling? It is a discinction with a diference. You theology says that the Father has a body and a spirit. Ours says the Father is Spirit.

Paul exorcised a spirit that was following for calimg Jesus was A way. Was he haggling?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Haggling with the term "has" is not going to solve the Trinitarian problem of ***igning different substances to a God they describe as a "****ousious" God.

Either God has, is, possesses---you choose the word you like---a body and a Spirit or He does not.

Taking Christ and stating that He has a Body of flesh and bones--and God the Father does not cannot amount to a ****ousious God.

If it does--can you explain how?




You theology says that the Father has a body and a spirit. Ours says the Father is Spirit.


And this is the problem with the Trinitarian theology--if God the Father does not have a body--and Jesus Christ has a body--could you explain the "****ousious" God?

You do realize that "****ousious" means same substance--right?

How can God be the same substance and be made up of different substances such as the Father and Son are in the Trinitarian theology?

[MacG]

[QUOTE=MacG;133140][QUOTE=dberrie2000;133063]




Which means that the water, steam, and ice is not a good ****ogy. They are not the same substance in all three states at the same time--it can only be one of the three, at the same time.

A "****ousious" God is just that--same substance.

Not friendly to Trinitarian doctrines.

See I learn something new everyday. I always thought that steam, water and ice were all the substance H2O. Now that I have learned what they are not, what they made of?

[Billyray]

I received no information to the such from a moderator.

But you have received this information in the past from a moderator. Yet you persist ? Why?

[MacG]

And this is the problem with the Trinitarian theology--if God the Father does not have a body--and Jesus Christ has a body--could you explain the "****ousious" God?

You do realize that "****ousious" means same substance--right?

How can God be the same substance and be made up of different substances such as the Father and Son are in the Trinitarian theology?

The paradigm of the TCJCLDS theology is what is constraining any possibility of understanding this. While not an exact picture, the three simultaneous forms of one substance ought to give you a glimmer of how this can be. The substance of God, and I am going out on a limb here, is probably more complex than H2O.

I cannot break it down any more than is explained in the New Testament and the BoM. There is one God, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. The New Testament tells us this one God has conversations within itself. The Father sends the Son and the Holy Spirit descends as a dove from the heavens while the Father speaks of His Son. It tells us that before the Son was found in the form of a man that He was equal with God (in more than one place by different writers). Wheras in the Old Testament God tells us in no uncertain terms that He has no equal. All three are represented as God and all three exhibit qualities that we would recognize as personhood, namley emotion but not to rule out interactive intelligence yet there is one God. I am comfortable at this point to say that the God that can resurrect billions of bodies dead for thousands of years (that's a lot of atoms) is more complex than the universe and is more complex than I can comprehend so I am content to apprehend the concept without being able to see completely through the smoked gl***.

If the Father God is the only one with whom we have to deal why is your Church dedicated to another glorified human God?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post


Which means that the water, steam, and ice is not a good ****ogy. They are not the same substance in all three states at the same time--it can only be one of the three, at the same time.

A "****ousious" God is just that--same substance.

Not friendly to Trinitarian doctrines.





See I learn something new everyday. I always thought that steam, water and ice were all the substance H2O. Now that I have learned what they are not, what they made of?



Could you provide a cite where I have maintained that water, steam, and ice do not cons***ute the same substance?

Water, steam, and ice can all be made of the same substance. But they do not cons***ute God the Father or God the Son.

The only point I have made about water, steam, and ice is that if I had a cup of water--it could not be all three conditions of water, steam, and ice at the same time. Matthew 17 has the Father and Son at the same location, at the same time.

If God the Father is a Spirit--and Jesus Christ has a body of flesh and bone--then that is where the different substances occur--- not water, steam, and ice.

How are those two different substances of the Father and Son considered a "****ousiosus" God?

[dberrie2000]

But you have received this information in the past from a moderator. Yet you persist ? Why?


I don't. I use the quote function now on the CARM forum. You are confusing the quote function with a link within the quote function.

[dberrie2000]

The paradigm of the TCJCLDS theology is what is constraining any possibility of understanding this. While not an exact picture, the three simultaneous forms of one substance ought to give you a glimmer of how this can be.

But that is just it--the trinitarians have it different substances--God the Father as a Spirit--God the Son with a physical Body of flesh and bone. They do not consider those the same substance. If they do--please give a cite and explanation of that.

[alanmolstad]

But that is just it--the trinitarians have it different substances--God the Father as a Spirit--God the Son with a physical Body of flesh and bone. They do not consider those the same substance. If they do--please give a cite and explanation of that.

That is correct...

The Father is pure spirit.
The son is pure spirit, and also human too.

Jesus has two natures......
The Son is both fully God, and fully human.

Equal to the father in his nature as God
Equal to me in his nature as a brother human.

Of the same "substance" (whatever that term means?) as the father, in that he is God.
The same "substance" as me, in that he is fully a normal guy.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post--But that is just it--the trinitarians have it different substances--God the Father as a Spirit--God the Son with a physical Body of flesh and bone. They do not consider those the same substance. If they do--please give a cite and explanation of that.



That is correct...


Well, if that is correct, that leaves the Trinitarians in the unenviable position of trying to explain how they believe in the "****ousious"(same substance) God.

[MacG]

Could you provide a cite where I have maintained that water, steam, and ice do not cons***ute the same substance?

Water, steam, and ice can all be made of the same substance. But they do not cons***ute God the Father or God the Son.

The only point I have made about water, steam, and ice is that if I had a cup of water--it could not be all three conditions of water, steam, and ice at the same time. Matthew 17 has the Father and Son at the same location, at the same time.

If God the Father is a Spirit--and Jesus Christ has a body of flesh and bone--then that is where the different substances occur--- not water, steam, and ice.

How are those two different substances of the Father and Son considered a "****ousiosus" God?

From your previous post:


They are not the same substance in all three states at the same time--it can only be one of the three, at the same time.

It seems that you still are not sure about either for you use the phrase "can be made of" what else can liquid water, water vapor and frozen water be made of?


The only point I have made about water, steam, and ice is that if I had a cup of water--it could not be all three conditions of water, steam, and ice at the same time.

And the triple point empirically demonstrates it does occur "at exactly 273.16 K (0.01 °C) and a partial vapour pressure of 611.73 pascals (ca. 6.1173 millibars, 0.0060373".

[dberrie2000]

--And the triple point empirically demonstrates it does occur "at exactly 273.16 K (0.01 °C) and a partial vapour pressure of 611.73 pascals (ca. 6.1173 millibars, 0.0060373".

And even if that is true--how do you relate that to the Father and Son being two different substances, and yet, the "****ousious" God?

Are you saying that under 6.1173 millibars--God the Father and the Son become the same substance?

Water may be the same substance in any given condition of water, ice, or steam--but flesh and bone and spirit are not.

[Billyray]

And even if that is true--how do you relate that to the Father and Son being two different substances, and yet, the "****ousious" God?

The Father and the Son are both equally God.

[dberrie2000]

dberrie---And even if that is true--how do you relate that to the Father and Son being two different substances, and yet, the "****ousious" God?

Are you saying that under 6.1173 millibars--God the Father and the Son become the same substance?

Water may be the same substance in any given condition of water, ice, or steam--but flesh and bone and spirit are not.



The Father and the Son are both equally God.


But that has not been argued. The argument is how the Trinitarians have God the Father as Spirit and God the Son as flesh and bone--and how that cons***utes the "****ousious" (same substance)God.

[MacG]

Are you saying that under 6.1173 millibars--God the Father and the Son become the same substance?


I am saying to understand the Trinity, the foundation is the understanding of three simultaneous forms of one substance. They already are the one substance in three forms. This is prior to the incarnation. Do you understand this part of our doctrine? To understand does not mean agreeing with it. This is a yes/no question before moving on.

[dberrie2000]

I am saying to understand the Trinity, the foundation is the understanding of three simultaneous forms of one substance.


But first--would you explain how a spirit and flesh and bone is the same substance?

[RealFakeHair]

I am saying to understand the Trinity, the foundation is the understanding of three simultaneous forms of one substance. They already are the one substance in three forms. This is prior to the incarnation. Do you understand this part of our doctrine? To understanding does not mean agreeing with it. This is a yes/no question before moving on.

Waiting with baited breath.:eek:

dberrie and I are playing dodge ball, you can join in too.

[Billyray]

But that has not been argued. The argument is how the Trinitarians have God the Father as Spirit and God the Son as flesh and bone--and how that cons***utes the "****ousious" (same substance)God.

But that is exactly what is in question here.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post--But that has not been argued. The argument is how the Trinitarians have God the Father as Spirit and God the Son as flesh and bone--and how that cons***utes the "****ousious" (same substance)God.


But that is exactly what is in question here.

True. So--could you explain how God the Father is Spirit--God the Son is flesh and bone--and that collates with a "****ousious"(same substance) God?

[Billyray]

True. So--could you explain how God the Father is Spirit--God the Son is flesh and bone--and that collates with a "****ousious"(same substance) God?
Sure. They are both equally God.

[MacG]

But first--would you explain how a spirit and flesh and bone is the same substance?

I cannot even attempt an explanation of multiplication to one who wishes to understand it without their first understanding addition. Neither can I attempt to convey my understanding of the incarnation to you without you understanding three coexistent forms of the same substance.

[James Banta]

Well, I could get technical and ask how God, even being omnipresent, can see Hagar if God does not have eye*****, cornea, etc.

Can the Holy Ghost see? Does He have eye*****, cornea etc. It is clear from the D&C that mormonism teaches He doesn't have a body of flesh and bone. That would mean He can see either?



Doctrine and Covenants 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.

Your answer/question here is senseless. You have to understand mormon teaching before you try to post here and it is clear that you do NOT know what you are talking about.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Well, if that is correct, that leaves the Trinitarians in the unenviable position of trying to explain how they believe in the "****ousious"(same substance) God.

Jesus is both God and man....

Thus Jesus is of the same "substance" of the father concerning his God nature.....being in nature equal with the father. (pure spirit)

And yet in his human nature he is of the same "substance" as me, being fully 100% human. (Flesh)

any questions of this point so far?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post--But that is just it--the trinitarians have it different substances--God the Father as a Spirit--God the Son with a physical Body of flesh and bone. They do not consider those the same substance. If they do--please give a cite and explanation of that.



Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post--That is correct...



dberrie---Well, if that is correct, that leaves the Trinitarians in the unenviable position of trying to explain how they believe in the "****ousious"(same substance) God.



Jesus is both God and man....

Thus Jesus is of the same "substance" of the father concerning his God nature.....

And what has the nature of God or the fact that Jesus was both God and man have to do with the fact that the Trinitarians believe the Father to have a spirit only--and Jesus Christ to possess a body of flesh and bones?

That is two different substances--as you have already agreed above.

If that is true--how do you believe in a "****ousious" (same substance) God?

[Billyray]

-how do you believe in a "****ousious" (same substance) God?

They are both equally God.

[dberrie2000]

dberrie----And what has the nature of God or the fact that Jesus was both God and man have to do with the fact that the Trinitarians believe the Father to have a spirit only--and Jesus Christ to possess a body of flesh and bones?

That is two different substances--as you have already agreed above.

If that is true--how do you believe in a "****ousious" (same substance) God?



They are both equally God.


Won't help your cause. You are going to have to explain how it is that the Trinitarians believe that God the Father is just a Spirit--and Jesus Christ has a body of flesh and bone--and they be the "****ousious"(same substance) God.

[alanmolstad]

If that is true--how do you believe in a "****ousious" (same substance) God?[/B]



.

I think it is answered like thus...

Jesus is the same nature as the father.
Everything you can say about the nature of the father, you can same in an equal manner about the Son.

So in this way we can know and have faith in the idea that Jesus and the Father share the same "substance" in that both are God , the one true God Almighty.

So they, (The father and the Son) are of the same nature, the same substance, in that they are God....and there is only one God.

But in addition to being Fully 100% God Almighty, Jesus is also fully human.

So this is the core of the Christian Faith, ....That we truly have "God with us" in the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is God almighty, wrapped in 100% human flesh with all it's weakness and deterioration that we all suffer with.

[alanmolstad]

And what has the nature of God or the fact that Jesus was both God and man have to do with the fact that the Trinitarians believe the Father to have a spirit only--and Jesus Christ to possess a body of flesh and bones?

?


This was a hard worded question for me to understand what you are asking about...

But let me take a shot at what I think you are pointing to...

Jesus is God.
Jesus is pure spirit, just as the Father is pure spirit...

This is their shared nature as the one true God.


So the God-nature of Christ is pure Love,pure Spirit.


and this pure Love, pure Spirit is wrapped in a covering of flesh in the womb of Mary.
Notice Jesus never stops being pure Love, pure Spirit,
but His Pure love, pure spirit nature is covered in the flesh of man so that Jesus could know death.

[Billyray]

Won't help your cause.

That is the exact thing that was meant by this term. Don't you think that the guys who used this term didn't realize that Jesus had a resurrected body?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Billyray View Post---They are both equally God.


dberrie---Won't help your cause. You are going to have to explain how it is that the Trinitarians believe that God the Father is just a Spirit--and Jesus Christ has a body of flesh and bone--and they be the "****ousious"(same substance) God.



That is the exact thing that was meant by this term. Don't you think that the guys who used this term didn't realize that Jesus had a resurrected body?


Huh? Are you saying that the Early Church Fathers didn't know Jesus Christ was resurrected and possessed a body of flesh and bone?

If they did not have that basic information--how can we rely on the Nicene creed? Trinitarianism?

****ousious was and is defined as "same substance":



http://home.catholicweb.com/covingtonmessenger/index.cfm/NewsItem?ID=317816


This Greek word <<****ousious>> is translated into Latin as <<consubstantialem>> and as we see in the revised English language Missal as “consubstantial.” As the Church prays together that Jesus is “consubstantial with the Father” we are expressing as clearly as our language will allow our belief that Jesus is God and in doing so confirming our belief in the Most Holy Trinity. While the Son (Jesus) is not the Father, He shares the same substance as the Father — here we have the beginning of our Trinitarian theology.


http://voices.yahoo.com/definitions-early-christian-movements-8303811.html



**** ousious vs. ****i ousious - ****iousios ("of like/similar substance") was the idea that the Father and Son were related in substance but not the same. This allowed for the incarnation while remaining true to the unchanging nature of God. ****ousious , by contrast, held to the idea that the Father and the Son were of the same substance. This was the hallmark of the Nicene Creed.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---And what has the nature of God or the fact that Jesus was both God and man have to do with the fact that the Trinitarians believe the Father to have a spirit only--and Jesus Christ to possess a body of flesh and bones?



This was a hard worded question for me to understand what you are asking about...

But let me take a shot at what I think you are pointing to...

Jesus is God.
Jesus is pure spirit, just as the Father is pure spirit...

This is their shared nature as the one true God.

Possessing a "spirit" does not separate God the Father from Jesus Christ nor any of mankind--as they all possessed spirits.


But, in the Trinitarian theology--this does:


Luke24:39--"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."

The Trinitarian theology has God the Father and Jesus Christ as the "****ousious" God--same substance. How is a Spirit and flesh and bone the same substance?




So the God-nature of Christ is pure Love,pure Spirit.


and this pure Love, pure Spirit is wrapped in a covering of flesh in the womb of Mary.
Notice Jesus never stops being pure Love, pure Spirit,
but His Pure love, pure spirit nature is covered in the flesh of man so that Jesus could know death.


And Jesus Christ is still a man, with a resurrected body of flesh and bone. That's the problem. Not that He was--but still is.

1 Timothy2:5--"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

[alanmolstad]

Possessing a "spirit" does not separate God the Father from Jesus Christ nor any of mankind--as they all possessed spirits.


But, in the Trinitarian theology--this does:


Luke24:39--"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."

"

Yes, this is why we talk about the "incarnation"
God became man.

God , (who is pure spirit)
became man (who is flesh)

God never stopped being Spirit.
So Jesus was then and still is fully 100% Spirit, and God.

But we do say that God became flesh...He became wrapped in human flesh.

Sorta like a loaf of bread is always a loaf of bread, even if you wrap it in plastic.
The loaf of bread is not changed , its still just a loaf of bread.
But you did wrap it in plastic.

God who is pure spirit, is always pure spirit.
God cant change or take-away from his inner nature.
But God can and did wrap himself in human flesh.


This is the meaning to the words "God with us"

The Father does not have a body of flesh.
Before the Word entered the womb of Mary he had no body of flesh.

But in that single moment inside the womb of Mary we understand that the Spirit of God was wrapped in 100% human flesh.

Now after the resurrection we do see in the upper room where Jesus himself pops in for a visit.
The men thought that Being dead that Jesus had to be a ghost.
(This same thing was later spoken of of Peter remember?)
and this is why that Jesus had to tell his men to handle him and see for themselves that it was really Him, really the SAME BODY that hung on the cross, the same body that he received in the womb of Mary, except for a changed nature from mortal to everlasting.

And we will have a new body one day just like the body that Jesus has!


So nothing Jesus said is to be understood as Jesus not saying he was God...LOL

But he does ask his men (and us) to believe that it is truly the same body that he was born with that he has now in heaven.

He tells us this so that we can have faith in just as the human body was raised from the dead, so to can our own dead human bodies be in the same way raised from the dead.

[alanmolstad]

And Jesus Christ is still a man, with a resurrected body of flesh and bone. That's the problem. Not that He was--but still is.

"

Yes, this is the message of the Christian church.
We are not saying that jesus was just man, but that jesus is fully Human, AND fully God.

Fully human means that we can look to the body of Christ to see what God will do for our own human bodies of flesh one day.
For Jesus is fully human......fully God.
The 2 totally different natures in union.


The Word, was made flesh.

The Word in flesh will always be from now on "in" flesh.

All that we will ever know about God, all that we will ever come to know about the Father, is already given to us in the Son.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post----Possessing a "spirit" does not separate God the Father from Jesus Christ nor any of mankind--as they all possessed spirits.


But, in the Trinitarian theology--this does:


Luke24:39--"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."




Yes, this is why we talk about the "incarnation"
God became man.

God , (who is pure spirit)
became man (who is flesh)



So--is God a Spirit--or flesh and bone?

[alanmolstad]

Wrapped in human flesh.
wrapped...not "replaced"

So the Word that is always pure spirit was wrapped in flesh.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post----Possessing a "spirit" does not separate God the Father from Jesus Christ nor any of mankind--as they all possessed spirits.


But, in the Trinitarian theology--this does:


Luke24:39--"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."



Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
Yes, this is why we talk about the "incarnation"
God became man.

God , (who is pure spirit)
became man (who is flesh)




dberrie---So--is God a Spirit--or flesh and bone?




Wrapped in human flesh.


Are you stating here that the answer to the question---"So--is God a Spirit--or flesh and bone?"----being God is flesh?

That is quite a contrast to the Trinity theology of God the Father being a Spirit only and Jesus Christ being a resurrected man of flesh and bone.

[MacG]

[QUOTE=RealFakeHair;133247]Waiting with baited breath.:eek:[QUOTE]

Why do you have salmon eggs on yur breath?

[alanmolstad]

Are you stating here that the answer to the question---"So--is God a Spirit--or flesh and bone?"----being God is flesh?

That is quite a contrast to the Trinity theology of God the Father being a Spirit only and Jesus Christ being a resurrected man of flesh and bone.

The Christian teaching is this:
That God wrapped himself in human flesh in the person of Jesus.

We do not believe that God gave up being god....for Jesus is always God.

But for the ability to die, God wrapped himself in human flesh.
Until he did this, God could never know death.
But this also is the reason the God did become flesh, so that he could die.

This means that God who can never die, was able to die a fully human and normal death.
thus his resurrection is a fully human resurrection and is the patter of our own resurrection too!

[dberrie2000]

The Christian teaching is this:
That God wrapped himself in human flesh in the person of Jesus.

We do not believe that God gave up being god....for Jesus is always God.

But for the ability to die, God wrapped himself in human flesh.
Until he did this, God could never know death.
But this also is the reason the God did become flesh, so that he could die.

This means that God who can never die, was able to die a fully human and normal death.
thus his resurrection is a fully human resurrection and is the patter of our own resurrection too!


So--are you saying that God is flesh and bone--or just a Spirit?

You have only followed the trail of Jesus Christ. You have established that He was and is flesh.

Now to God the Father--is He flesh and bone or Spirit?

Then to God--is God flesh and bone--or Spirit?

You see, Alanmolstad--one cannot separate out Christ or God the Father when designating the lone term "God".

One can only separate the persons in the phrase "God the Father", or "God the Son", or in a statement where the person is understood---but not in "God". That includes the Trinity.

[Billyray]

so--are you saying that god is flesh and bone--or just a spirit?

. . .
. . .

there is one god in three persons: The father, the son, and the holy spirit. The son has a resurrected body.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by billyray View Post
there is one god in three persons: The father, the son, and the holy spirit. The son has a resurrected body.

If the Son has a resurrected Body--and the Father is just a Spirit only--is God a Spirit or have a body of flesh and bone?

[Billyray]

If the Son has a resurrected Body--and the Father is just a Spirit only--is God a Spirit or have a body of flesh and bone?

God the Son has a resurrected body. The Father does not.

[dberrie2000]

God the Son has a resurrected body. The Father does not.


So--does the Trinity God have a body of flesh and bone--or is just a Spirit only? You are only addressing the Persons of the Godhead--not God, as a Trinity.

How do you relate this to the "****ousious" (same substance) Trinity God?

[Billyray]

So--does the Trinity God have a body of flesh and bone--or is just a Spirit only?

I thought my statement was clear.

There is one God made up of three persons. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son has a resurrected body.

Colossians 1
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

[dberrie2000]

I thought my statement was clear.

There is one God made up of three persons. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son has a resurrected body.

If God is made up of the three persons--then all three would have to be considered in the determination of whether the Trinity God was a Spirit or flesh and bones.

You stated that Jesus has a body. There are two more that make up the Trinity God.

Do you believe that God the Father is a Spirit only, or flesh and bone also?

[Billyray]

Do you believe that God the Father is a Spirit only, or flesh and bone also?

God the Father and the Holy Spirit do not have a resurrected body.

[dberrie2000]

God the Father and the Holy Spirit do not have a resurrected body.

So---you have a Trinity God made up of one person that has a body of flesh and bone--and two that are Spirit.

How does that jive with a "****ousious" (same substance) Trinity God?

As a Trinity God--is that considered a God with a body--or just a Spirit--or both?

[Billyray]

So---you have a Trinity God made up of one person that has a body of flesh and bone--and two that are Spirit.


We have a Triune God made up of three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in which the Son took on human flesh and is the visable image of the invisable God.

Colossians 1
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God. . .

[Billyray]

How does that jive with a "****ousious" (same substance) Trinity God?


This is used in the sense that Jesus is equally God. Certainly you don't think that the guys who used this term were unaware that Jesus had a resurrected body do you?

[Billyray]

Genesis 18
New International Version (NIV)
The Three Visitors

1The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.3 He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord,[a] do not p*** your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.”


Who is the Lord in verse 18?

Did the Lord have a body and did he eat during his stay?

[dberrie2000]

We have a Triune God made up of three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in which the Son took on human flesh and is the visable image of the invisable God.

Colossians 1
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God. . .

And not only took on, but still has:

Luke24:39--"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."

[Billyray]

And not only took on, but still has:

Luke24:39--"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."

Which is what I have already said. Right?

[Billyray]

And not only took on, but still has:

Luke24:39--"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 the Father and the Son have physical bodies that are exactly like yours but in a perfected state how can they be omnipresent?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
And not only took on, but still has:

Luke24:39--"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."




Which is what I have already said. Right?


Right. And which I have asked you and other faith alone here-----if Jesus Christ has a Body of flesh and bones--and God the Father is Spirit only--


Is the Trinity God flesh and Bone--or just a Spirit?


If the Father and the Son are made up of two different substances--then how do you explain the "****ousious"(same substance) God?

[Billyray]

Is the Trinity God flesh and Bone--or just a Spirit?


Did you miss my answer to this question which I have already post multiple times now?


There is one God in three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son has a resurrected body.

[Billyray]

If the Father and the Son are made up of two different substances--then how do you explain the "****ousious"(same substance) God?

I have already answered this questions multiple times as well did you miss all my posts or perhaps are you not remembering them?


Jesus is equally God. BTW this term is not used in the Bible but I am sure you already knew that.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
If the Father and the Son are made up of two different substances--then how do you explain the "****ousious"(same substance) God?



I have already answered this questions multiple times as well did you miss all my posts or perhaps are you not remembering them?

Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
Jesus is equally God. BTW this term is not used in the Bible but I am sure you already knew that.

Could you explain how Jesus being equally God somehow explains how He possesses a body of flesh and bone--and the faith alone state that God the Father is a Spirit only--and they form the "****ousious"(same substance) God?

How does your answer touch upon how they are, together, the same substance, as the Trinity God?

[Billyray]

Could you explain how Jesus being equally God somehow explains how He possesses a body of flesh and bone--and the faith alone state that God the Father is a Spirit only--and they form the "****ousious"(same substance) God?


Sure. I have told you multiple times now. The term is used to show that Jesus is equally God. BTW this term is not found in the Bible so I never use it because it confuses people like you. The whole point is that Jesus is God and part of the Trinity and has been eternally God from everlasting to everlasting. This is in conflict with the cults because the cults bring down Jesus in some way. The Mormns bring Jesus down by saying that he has not always been God and that he was begotten and born to a heavenly mother just like you and me. In essence bringing Jesus down to our level which of course is heresy. Hope that helps.

[alanmolstad]

So--are you saying that God is flesh and bone--or just a Spirit?


God is ALWAYs spirit.....always......always and always...

and for our salvation God wrapped himself in flesh and blood and was made man so that he might die for our sin.

God was, is and will always be spirit!

But God became flesh and blood so he could die.

Right now Jesus was raised in a human body of flesh and bone and will have this same body forever.

[Russianwolfe]

God is ALWAYs spirit.....always......always and always...

and for our salvation God wrapped himself in flesh and blood and was made man so that he might die for our sin.

God was, is and will always be spirit!

But God became flesh and blood so he could die.

Right now Jesus was raised in a human body of flesh and bone and will have this same body forever.


Please tell us what the Bible says spirit is. Only what it is not what it isn't. You claim that God is spirit, but what have you said really? Does the Bible tell you what spirit is? Can you define what spirit by using the Bible? Please, tell us what the Bible says spirit is.

Marvin

[glm1978]

Please tell us what the Bible says spirit is. Only what it is not what it isn't. You claim that God is spirit, but what have you said really? Does the Bible tell you what spirit is? Can you define what spirit by using the Bible? Please, tell us what the Bible says spirit is.

Marvin

What don't you understand about 'spirit has not flesh and bones?' Just because YOU can't understand what it means, does not make it a false teaching. A spirit is intangible.

Please show us where the bible says God has a body. Give us the chapter and verse(s) Can you tell us why we can't see God? If God has a body, then why must he be worshiped only in spirit?

Please discuss Mormonism. I'll be waiting...:rolleyes: