Christians: "In These Three I Believe"

[FFH]

So, to say that God is Spirit, which Jesus explicitly defines as something without a body, and then to say that God has a physical form, is a blatant contradiction.

Show me the scripture stating "God is spirit".

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Show me the scripture stating "God is spirit".

Certainly:

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:24

cf. Luke 24:39, "Behold My (Christ's) hands and My feet, that it is I myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

FGS

 

[FFH]

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:24

Thanks for pulling that up. This is an important scripture to examine and compare.

I understand why one would believe "God is a spirit," because, according to the King James, He is.

I beleive Joseph Smith has restored the Bible, true to the original text.

Portions in blue are the same in both versions. Portions in red show corrections.

King James version
John 4:24

God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

This is how it originaly read:

Joseph Smith Inspired version
John 4:26

For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24:39, "Behold My (Christ's) hands and My feet, that it is I myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

You're misunderstanding Christ's statement in this verse, about His own immortal body, which, He clearly states, constists of flesh and bone.

Christ's disciples were able to handle His hands and feet, in order to verify this.

A spirit body has no flesh and bones, but consists only of fine spirit matter, which cannot be handled by human hands.

If Christ had a spirit body, His disciples would not have been able to handle His hands and feet.

In the following verse, Christ compares a spirit body, which has no flesh and bone,to His immortal body, which consists of flesh and bone.

The two versions are the same, excepting punctuation and capitalization.

King James version
Luke 24: 39

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

Joseph Smith Inspired version
Luke 24:38

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I, myself. Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you seeme have.

 

[Melody]

I understand why one would believe "God is a spirit," because, according to the King James, He is.

I beleive Joseph Smith has restored the Bible, true to the original text.

And there's the schism. Game over. Tilt. Non-mormons do not believe the Book of Mormon is Scripture so there's no way of having a debate once it's brought in to the debate. Too bad....this thread has been quite interesting.

 

[James the Persian]

And there's the schism. Game over. Tilt. Non-mormons do not believe the Book of Mormon is Scripture so there's no way of having a debate once it's brought in to the debate. Too bad....this thread has been quite interesting.

I don't believe that FFH was actually referring to the Book of Mormon but rather the revision of the Bible made by Joseph Smith (which doesn't even seem to be accepted as the version by Mormons). Of course, we non-Mormons don't believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of any kind and given that to the best of my knowledge he was not versed in Biblical languages either, that means that his version of the Bible is immediately suspect to us. You are correct, whichever of the two texts is mentioned, that it doesn't provide much of a common ground for discussion.

James

 

[Katzpur]

Sure, but you also have to remember that God cannot contradict Himself. One aspect of His divine nature cannot contradict another aspect. So, to say that God is Spirit, which Jesus explicitly defines as something without a body, and then to say that God has a physical form, is a blatant contradiction.

Be careful how you define your terms. Are you saying that Jesus was not God? After all, He explicitely stated that He was flesh and bones.

A spirit may exist in an embodied form or an unembodied form. While Jesus walked the earth, His spirit existed within His body. When He died, His spirit left His body and visited the Spirit World. When He was resurrected, His spirit re-entered His body. Was He only God during the three days between His death and His resurrection?

 

[Katzpur]

And there's the schism. Game over. Tilt. Non-mormons do not believe the Book of Mormon is Scripture so there's no way of having a debate once it's brought in to the debate. Too bad....this thread has been quite interesting.

I totally agree. If a Muslim tried to prove something to me by saying, "Well, it's right here in the Quran..." I'd say, "So what?" Uniquely LDS scriptures are pretty much useless in a debate.

 

[Katzpur]

I would say that Adam was made automatically in God's image, while we have to attain it, due to sin (which is the only real difference between him and us at creation, aside form a bellybutton ). When we are conformed to God's image, which Adam had immediately at creation because he was innocent and without sin, we are not changed physically, but spiritually.

With this in mind, I would appreciate hearing your comments on my next-to-the-last paragraph of my post #38. God created Adam in His image, after His likeness and then Adam turned around and begat a son in his image, after his likeness. Did the meaning of the phrase "in his image, after his likeness" change so drastically in five chapters? Do you honestly feel that this choice of words in both cases is coincidental?

As a Mormon, you ASSUME that it is physical because you believe God has a body, but there's no actual reason that I can see from the Scriptural context that we would assume that it is physical.

I think you've got it backwards here. We base our doctrine on what the scriptures say, not the other way around.

 

[Polaris]

As a Mormon, you ASSUME that it is physical because you believe God has a body, but there's no actual reason that I can see from the Scriptural context that we would assume that it is physical.

As a Catholic, you ASSUME that it is not physical because you believe God doesn't have a body. I believe it refers to physical in this passage because the context is concerning a physical creation. Why should we assume that all of a sudden the context completely changed?

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Again, you have to consider the context of its usage. The whole point of this passage is that we must worship in spirit. That is the only way we can commune with God is through the spirit. In that context, the statement "God is spirit" makes perfect sense and is not the same thing as saying "God has no physical body". The fact that God has a spiritual nature and that we are to worship through the spirit is the whole message here.

Obviously you like to establish definitions for "ambiguous" words from other passages. In certain cases that works just fine, but it doesn't ALWAYS work that way. Because words like "image", "likeness", and "spirit" can have slightly different meanings, each with their own subtle differences, you have to consider the immediate context in which it is used.

True, without inspired clarification on the topic, I'd admit that your interpretation is potentially valid, but you cannot reasonably declare our interpretation to be contextually wrong.

Of course, we non-Mormons don't believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of any kind

I understand that, and I understand how that diminishes our debatable common ground. But what I don't understand is why so many Christians are so quick to deny the existance or even the possibile existance of a modern-day prophet. It seems ironic to me especially in light of the fact that Christianity is based on the existance of prophets, revelation, and inspired writings. Much of the Bible is about prophets who were often rejected by the people, and yet Christians are so quick to do the same today. I realize this is probably a topic for another thread, but I just find the whole situation ironic -- there is clearly a need for a prophet today.

 

[Katzpur]

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:24

I'd be interested in exploring what this statement actually means to you. You realize, of course, that Polaris and I also believe it to be a true description of what God is, so we're obviously interpreting it differently. Would you mind telling me what, exactly, you believe "spirit" really is? When you read, "God is spirit," what is that saying to you?

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

the phrase "God is sprit" doesn’t make any since to me it contradicts that Jesus is a person of "flesh and bone" there are many quote of a " living God" to me this means that God also has "flesh and bones" for the angles said unto Luke and others "why seek the living among the dead?" wouldn’t this mean that a living God would also have "Flesh and bones" and also the difference between "a body" and "a sprit body" mean that the sprit body is like a sprit and also like a body of "flesh and bones" why would Jesus have a body of "flesh and bones" and God the creator of us all dose not have a body of “flesh and bones”?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

[

quote=FFH]Thanks for pulling that up. This is an important scripture to examine and compare.

I understand why one would believe "God is a spirit," because, according to the King James, He is.

It's got nothing to do with the King James, it's what the original Greek manuscript of the text says. Never, ever depend exclusively on any one English version or translation, always look to the original language.

I beleive Joseph Smith has restored the Bible, true to the original text.

IN order to be restored it would have to be lost...when did this happen?

Portions in blue are the same in both versions. Portions in red show corrections.

King James version
John 4:24

God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

This is how it originaly read:

Joseph Smith Inspired version
John 4:26

For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth.

How in the world are you coming to the conclusion that that is how it originally read? Other than the singular testimony of Joseph Smith, what actual manuscript evidence is there to suggest that Smith's translation is true to the original Greek text?

You're misunderstanding Christ's statement in this verse, about His own immortal body, which, He clearly states, constists of flesh and bone,

A spirit body has no flesh and bones, but consists only of fine spirit matter, which cannot be handled by human hands.

Define spirit matter, and where in the world you got such a concept out of Scripture?

If Christ had a spritual body, His disciples would not have been able to handle His hands and feet.

In the following verse, Christ compares a spirit body, which has no flesh and bone,to His immortal body, which consists of flesh and bone.

Christ says nothing about a "spirit body", He simply says that a spirit (remember that God is Spirit) does not have flesh and bones.

Besides, if you're claiming that God has a "spirit body", composed of "spirit matter", which is unlike human physical bodies, then how can you maintain that we are made in God's physical image, since you've just established that He and us are made of totally different matter and He can't even be touched while we can?

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Be careful how you define your terms. Are you saying that Jesus was not God? After all, He explicitely stated that He was flesh and bones.

A spirit may exist in an embodied form or an unembodied form. While Jesus walked the earth, His spirit existed within His body. When He died, His spirit left His body and visited the Spirit World. When He was resurrected, His spirit re-entered His body. Was He only God during the three days between His death and His resurrection?

Not at all. You're taking the exception and making it the rule. The reason Christ has a physical body is because He has a complete human nature. He, as God, came down to earth and assumed a physical human nature. That's what's so wondrous about the Incarnation....God Himself was manifest in the flesh. If Christ was already physical flesh He would have no need to be Incarnated, He already was.

FGS

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

As a Catholic, you ASSUME that it is not physical because you believe God doesn't have a body. I believe it refers to physical in this passage because the context is concerning a physical creation. Why should we assume that all of a sudden the context completely changed?

No, I don't assume it, because I've already established with Scriptural cross-referencing that God's image is something we are conformed to spiritually, not something physical. However, you have provided no such cross-referencing which demonstrates that image is explicitly physical. Thus, you are the one assuming.

Again, you have to consider the context of its usage. The whole point of this passage is that we must worship in spirit.

Exactly. Our worship of God is spiritual, not something physical for outward appearances.

That is the only way we can commune with God is through the spirit.

In other words, through supernatural, immaterial communion with an infinite, omnipresent God.

In that context, the statement "God is spirit" makes perfect sense and is not the same thing as saying "God has no physical body".

Why not? Jesus explicitly tells us that a spirit does not have flesh and bones.

The fact that God has a spiritual nature and that we are to worship through the spirit is the whole message here.

Yes, clearly...however, that doesn't negate the clear meaning of the statement, especially in light of the definition Christ gives us.

Obviously you like to establish definitions for "ambiguous" words from other passages.

Well, yeah, that's kinda how one does a Bible study . You don't typically just examine one passage, you cross-reference with other Scripture to make the meaning more clear.

In certain cases that works just fine, but it doesn't ALWAYS work that way. Because words like "image", "likeness", and "spirit" can have slightly different meanings, each with their own subtle differences, you have to consider the immediate context in which it is used.

And again, I did consider the immediate contexts. Both cases, Old and New Testament, pertain to how we humans relate to God's image.

True, without inspired clarification on the topic, I'd admit that your interpretation is potentially valid, but you cannot reasonably declare our interpretation to be contextually wrong.

Yes, I can, because it is clear from the examples that I have provided that imaghe is explicitly spiritual in a number of Scriptural cases, while you have not established that any example of image is explicitly physical.

FGS

 

[Katzpur]

Not at all. You're taking the exception and making it the rule. The reason Christ has a physical body is because He has a complete human nature. He, as God, came down to earth and assumed a physical human nature. That's what's so wondrous about the Incarnation....God Himself was manifest in the flesh. If Christ was already physical flesh He would have no need to be Incarnated, He already was.

The fact remains, if spirit and physical were mutually exclusive, Jesus Christ could not, as God, have taken upon Himself a body of flesh and bones and remained God.

 

[Katzpur]

Jesus explicitly tells us that a spirit does not have flesh and bones.

Do you have a spirit? Aren't you a spirit within a mortal body. When you die, does that spirit part of you cease to exist? If you did not have a spirit component, you could not conceivably worship God "in spirit."

 

[Polaris]

No, I don't assume it, because I've already established with Scriptural cross-referencing that God's image is something we are conformed to spiritually, not something physical. However, you have provided no such cross-referencing which demonstrates that image is explicitly physical. Thus, you are the one assuming.

But you're ASSUMING that the meaning if "image" in your NT examples is exactly the same as its usage in Genesis. No where does it indicate that explicitly -- that's an assumption you are making.

Yes, I can, because it is clear from the examples that I have provided that imaghe is explicitly spiritual in a number of Scriptural cases, while you have not established that any example of image is explicitly physical.

That's not true. There is no explicit connection. What you are suggesting is that there are implicit connections, which are subjective.

My argument that the context calls for "image" to refer to the physical is just as valid, if not more so, than your argument that some verse in the NT should define which definition for "image" should be implied in Genesis.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

With this in mind, I would appreciate hearing your comments on my next-to-the-last paragraph of my post #38. God created Adam in His image, after His likeness and then Adam turned around and begat a son in his image, after his likeness. Did the meaning of the phrase "in his image, after his likeness" change so drastically in five chapters? Do you honestly feel that this choice of words in both cases is coincidental?

Not at all, I think both cases have non-physical connotation.

I think you've got it backwards here. We base our doctrine on what the scriptures say, not the other way around.

In this debate, it doesn't seem that way. I have provided clear evidence that the Apostles interepreted "image" repeatedly as something explicitly spiritual, while you have provided no Scripture which is clearly and explicitly physical in regards to "image".

FGS

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

But you're ASSUMING that the meaning if "image" in your NT examples is exactly the same as its usage in Genesis. No where does it indicate that explicitly -- that's an assumption you are making.

No it isn't, you already admitted that my thought process there was basically valid: "True, without inspired clarification on the topic, I'd admit that your interpretation is potentially valid" IOW, my explanation makes Scriptural sense, but I don't accept the "inspired clarification" of Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Again, this goes to show that you are assuming your interpretations because you are Mormon, while my explanations are Scripturally sound on their own.

That's not true. There is no explicit connection. What you are suggesting is that there are implicit connections, which are subjective.

It's not subjective at all, one simply has to examine the New Testament teaching on the concept. If the Apostles continually and repeatedly use "image" in relation to God in a spiritual sense, and not in explicitly physical senses, then it is only logical to assume that their interpretation of God's "image" in Genesis (where the same Greek word is used in the Septuagint) agrees with those explanations.

FGS

 

[Katzpur]

Not at all, I think both cases have non-physical connotation.

Well, to interpret Genesis 5 as you have takes a whole lot of manipulation, in my opinion.

In this debate, it doesn't seem that way. I have provided clear evidence that the Apostles interepreted "image" repeatedly as something explicitly spiritual, while you have provided no Scripture which is clearly and explicitly physical in regards to "image".

Okay, I don't have time to compile examples right now, but it shouldn't be hard to do. There are far more examples in the scriptures where the word "image" is used as we generally use it today -- to describe the representation of physical attributes -- than there are where it is used to describe non-physical attributes. But based upon your interpretation of the passage in Genesis 5, I'm guessing your mind is pretty well closed on the subject.