The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[ewq1938]

Your position is outside that of orthodox Christianity. What is your theological persuasion? From where do you gain these unorthodox views of the nature of God?

It doesn't matter if it's non-orthodox as being orthodox is completely meaningless. The fact that the Father has a physical body comes directly from scripture. I don't make lame excuses to explain the verses away.

You are promoting a Mormon view of God having a body of flesh and bones. See HERE.

No, I am promoting a biblical view of God having a body. I am not Mormon and do not agree with a great deal of their beliefs because they aren't biblically based. They simply happen to be correct about him having a body.

Your doctrine of God conforms with that of Mormonism.

That is meaningless.

Are you a Mormon or Mormon sympathiser?

Not in the slightest. I am a person whose beliefs come solely from scripture, regardless of what orthodoxy says about those scriptural things and regardless of what various cults agree with or not agree with.

This is a typical used fallacy when you can't dispute the scriptural facts you try to claim it must be false if a cult promotes it. It just happens this is one of the rare things a cult happens to get right which is amazing given the same people think they will become God's and live on other planets lol It reminds of the old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[ewq1938]

Why are you promoting on this evangelical Christian forum that yours is a God of Mormonism?

Oz

I'm not, you are falsely accusing me. Mormonism is a cult with an originator that will go to the lake of fire because he added to and took away from the book of Revelation in his re-writing of it. Now, if you continue to claim I am Mormon or promoting a God of Mormonism I will personally speak to a moderator about it.

Exo_33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Believing this verse is true, that God has a face, hands and a back of a body is not Mormon even if Mormons see it the same way.

 

[OzSpen]

It doesn't matter if it's non-orthodox as being orthodox is completely meaningless. The fact that the Father has a physical body comes directly from scripture. I don't make lame excuses to explain the verses away.


No, I am promoting a biblical view of God having a body. I am not Mormon and do not agree with a great deal of tehir beliefs because they aren't biblically based. They simply happen to be correct about him having a body.


That is meaningless.



Not in the slightest. I am a person whose beliefs come solely from scripture, regardless of what orthodoxy says about those scriptural things and regardless of what various cults agree with or not agree with.

This is a typical used fallacy when you can't dispute the scriptural facts you try to claim it must be false if a cult promotes it. It just happens this is one of the rare things a cult happens to get right which is amazing given the same people think they will become God's and live on other planets lol It reminds of the old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

If being orthodox in theology is meaningless to you, then you are promoting unorthodox theology, which you are with your requirement for God having a physical body. That is a Mormon view of God. I've demonstrated that to you. No matter how much you try to demonstrate that God has a body, you happen to be dead wrong. How do I know? Scripture tells us so in John 4:24: 'God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth'.

No matter how much you try to mount a case for God having a body, you fail because the Scriptures are adamant: 'God is spirit'. End of story!

You are promoting a Mormon God whose theology of God comes straight from Joseph Smith and not from the Bible. Your view, 'It just happens this is one of the rare things a cult happens to get right which is amazing given the same people think they will become God's and live on other planets lol', demonstrates how wrong you are when I've already given you the link to where Joseph Smith taught your view of God in Doctrine and Covenants 130:22. The Bible teaches 'God is spirit', therefore, he cannot have a body. We are not talking about the incarnation of Jesus here.

So what is the fallacy I'm using? You didn't name it. I am not using a fallacy because what you are doing is twisting Scripture to make it agree with your presuppositional view of God. I've already demonstrated to you that you have used a question begging fallacy. It is you who is engaged in a circular reasoning fallacy.

Is Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, telling the truth when he wrote: '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' (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).

Is Scripture telling the truth when it says, 'God is spirit' (Jn 4:24)?

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

If there is a moderator present please PM me, I would like to speak to someone about this issue, thank you.

If being orthodox in theology is meaningless to you, then you are promoting unorthodox theology, which you are with your requirement for God having a physical body. That is a Mormon view of God. I've demonstrated that to you. No matter how much you try to demonstrate that God has a body, you happen to be dead wrong. How do I know? Scripture tells us so in John 4:24: 'God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth'.

You don't understand what that verse is saying. It doesn't say "God the Father is spirit" does it?

No matter how much you try to mount a case for God having a body, you fail because the Scriptures are adamant: 'God is spirit'. End of story!

Scriptures describes him having a body. Going against scripture will always result in a failure.

You are promoting a Mormon God whose theology of God comes straight from Joseph Smith and not from the Bible.

That is a lie and it's against the rules of this forum. My views come directly from scripture not Mormonism.

The Bible teaches 'God is spirit', therefore, he cannot have a body.

You are wrong. I have proven you wrong.

So what is the fallacy I'm using? You didn't name it.

It's a false association fallacy. Example, just because Mormons believe Jesus is the prophesied Messiah doesn't mean anyone that also believes that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah is somehow Mormon. It's a false association intentionally used by you to try to tarnish my reputation and harm me, all against the rules of this forum.

Is Scripture telling the truth when it says, 'God is spirit'?

Yes but you insert your own belief that "God the Father is spirit". Scripture counters that false belief starting in Genesis when Adam could hear God walking. That alone proves God had a physical form because walking requires a body, and to hear walking means the body had weight and affected things on the ground such as sticks and leaves to make sounds.

 

[OzSpen]

If there is a moderator present please PM me, I would like to speak to someone about this issue, thank you.

There's a simple method for you to report me or any person to moderators. It's the 'report' function at the bottom left of the screen. Report me and the report goes to moderators.

What is it that you want to report about my post?

Oz

 

[StanJ]

My view is not narrow, it is scripturally based unlike yours.

You have to actually SHOW that, which you haven't.

 

[ewq1938]

You have to actually SHOW that, which you haven't.

Yes I have. I posted all the proof texts and not a single person commented on them. Post 511

 

[OzSpen]

You don't understand what that verse is saying. It doesn't say "God the Father is spirit" does it?

Scriptures describes him having a body. Going against scripture will always result in a failure.

That is a lie and it's against the rules of this forum. My views come directly from scripture not Mormonism.

It's a false association fallacy. Example, just because Mormons believe Jesus is the prophesied Messiah doesn't mean anyone that also believes that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah is somehow Mormon. It's a false association intentionally used by you to try to tarnish my reputation and harm me, all against the rules of this forum.

Yes but you insert your own belief that "God the Father is spirit". Scripture counters that false belief starting in Genesis when Adam could hear God walking. That alone proves God had a physical form because walking requires a body, and to hear walking means the body had weight and affected things on the ground such as sticks and leaves to make sounds.

1. I DO understand what John 4:24 states: 'God is spirit'. It is speaking about God's essence. He is completely spiritual - spirit! Ho theos (the God) is not a deity of stone, tree, or mountain where he has to be worshipped on a mountain like Mt Gerizim. Ho theos is the one and only true God and the context of John 4:23 tells us John is talking of the Father. The Father God is the God of spirit - not the God of flesh that you are trying to make him.
2. God CANNOT be the God with a body when John 4:24 clearly states the essence is: 'The God is spirit'.
3. I'm not lying about your view. The view that God has a body is a Mormon view of God. You have already acknowledged to me in a post that this is one area when the Mormon cult got it right. Do you remember your saying that? I asked you if you were a Mormon or Mormon sympathiser and you said you were not. I accept that. However, your view of God having a body coincides with the Mormon doctrine of God and you've already stated to me that this is one area where the cult got it correct.
4. I'm not in any way suggesting that all of your theology agrees with Mormonism. I never said that, so to go into the Mormon view of Messiah is irrelevant. I was simply comparing your view of God with that of Mormonism. They synchronise.
5. I do NOT insert my own belief into 'God is spirit'. I exegete the text.
6. You say, 'in Genesis when Adam could hear God walking. That alone proves God had a physical form because walking requires a body'. Not it doesn't! Gen 3:8 (ESV) states that Adam and his wife 'heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden'. Since we know that 'God is spirit' and here Scripture states that they heard the sound/voice of Yahweh God walking about in the garden, 'there is extreme likelihood that the Almighty assumed some form analogous to the human form which was made in His image. Nor is there anything farfetched about the further supposition that previously our first parents had freely met with and conversed with their heavenly Father' (Leupold 1942:155). This could have been a theophany - a manifestation or appearance of Yahweh to a human being. However, it does not demonstrate that God has a permanent physical body since 'God is spirit' by essence.
7. God appearing to Adam & Eve in a theophany must not be confused with anthropomorphism, which is ascribing human attributes in describing God and his activities.

Sincerely,
Oz

Works consulted
Leupold, H C 1942. Exposition of Genesis, vol 1. London: Evangelical Press.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes I have. I posted all the proof texts and not a single person commented on them. Post 511

I have not replied to the texts you posted in #511 for a couple of reasons:

1. As I've already demonstrated to you, you use a circular reasoning (question begging) logical fallacy. You start with your definition that God has a body and you set out to 'prove' he has a body with cherry picking of verses. When you start and finish with the same premise, it uses fallacious reasoning. This means that....

2. You use verse after verse to try to bolster your case. You have not engaged in careful exegesis of each verse in context. So to expose your fallacious reasoning would take hours upon hours of study and I don't have the time. I've provided you with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that you use a question begging fallacy. We cannot have a rational conversation when you do this. Therefore, if I carefully exegeted each of your verses, you would not receive what I have to say. Why? You seem to have a pre-set view that God has a body and no amount of evidence provided will move you. Isn't that the case?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not, you are falsely accusing me. Mormonism is a cult with an originator that will go to the lake of fire because he added to and took away from the book of Revelation in his re-writing of it. Now, if you continue to claim I am Mormon or promoting a God of Mormonism I will personally speak to a moderator about it.

Exo_33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Believing this verse is true, that God has a face, hands and a back of a body is not Mormon even if Mormons see it the same way.

I AM NOT accusing you of belonging to the Mormon cult. I asked you in another post if you were a Mormon or a Mormon sympathiser and you denied that. I accept this as an honest statement from you.

However, your view that God has a body is an unorthodox view of God that synchronises with the Mormon view of God that Joseph Smith declared in Doctrine and Covenants (30:22). I've given you a link to this previously.

Go ahead and talk to a moderator about this, but I've simply made the parallel between your view of God and the Mormon view of God that he has a body. They coincide.

Exodus 33:23 (ESV) uses the language of anthropomorphism - describing a deity with human characteristics. Please understand what this is. It is NOT talking about God having literal hands and back. How do we know? 'God is spirit (Jn 4:24).

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

Go ahead and talk to a moderator about this, but I've simply made the parallel between your view of God and the Mormon view of God that he has a body. They coincide.

That is irrelevant. Mormons get some things right and a lot wrong.

You are promoting a Mormon God whose theology of God comes straight from Joseph Smith and not from the Bible.

This is the issue. I am NOT promoting a Mormon God. I am promoting what God provides about himself in scripture which you haven't properly debated.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes I have. I posted all the proof texts and not a single person commented on them. Post 511

Yes, I have at #526. This is a false charge.

I've also done it at #549 and #550.

 

[OzSpen]

That is irrelevant. Mormons get some things right and a lot wrong.

This is the issue. I am NOT promoting a Mormon God. I am promoting what God provides about himself in scripture which you haven't properly debated.

Actually, your view of God having a body does not come from the Scriptures, no matter how much you protest. It is a view of God that the Mormons promote, a view that originated with the Mormon's founder, Joseph Smith (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).

What the Mormons got wrong in their doctrine of God was that he has a body (which is your view) and that God was a former mortal man:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea... He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth.

Joseph Smith - Mormonism founder
Ensign, April 1971, p.13-14

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

Actually, your view of God having a body does not come from the Scriptures, no matter how much you protest.

Yes it does. You simply misinterpret it through the dark glass of the doctrines of your denomination.

God had a face that Moses could not see, but he could see God's hand and back. That cannot be disputed. Claiming they are figurative contradicts the obvious and plain context of the event that transpired. If God has no actual face then Moses could not have seen it and not died but the truth is God has a literal face and if Moses saw it he would have literally died. Not a figurative face, not a figurative death.

and that God was a former mortal man:

Naturally that is wrong. They take what is true from scripture then add on their own inventions.

 

[StanJ]

Yes I have. I posted all the proof texts and not a single person commented on them. Post 511

Funny because I dealt with you on this in post 509 and you all you did was deflect and act dismissive, which is very common for those of your ilk that do NOT have answers. You also haven't deal with my subsequent responses to you on this issue. So WHERE exactly does the Bible show us God the Father HAS a body? You refer to visions and images that are conveyed in a metaphorical/hyperbolic use, which means you don't really KNOW how to read God's word by the Holy Spirits guidance. Apparently you pick and chose what will convey you dogma even though it doesn't.
John 1:18 (NIV)
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Manifestations like those in Gen 18:1-2, do NOT depict the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as having a real body, He just manifested a body like He also did with angels.

 

[StanJ]

God had a face that Moses could not see, but he could see God's hand and back. That cannot be disputed. Claiming they are figurative contradicts the obvious and plain context of the event that transpired. If God has no actual face then Moses could not have seen it and not died but the truth is God has a literal face and if Moses saw it he would have literally died. Not a figurative face, not a figurative death.

Again not according to Jesus, John 1:18 (NIV), so did Jesus lie, or are you mistaken? Please limit your response to an actual pertinent response.

 

[mjrhealth]

God had a face that Moses could not see, but he could see God's hand and back

Missed the point, of course God has a face, it is just that if Moses in His fallen state had looked upon it he would have died. So God let Him see Him from behind.

 

[mjrhealth]

Interesting isnt it ??

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Exo 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
Exo 24:11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Hmmmm

 

[OzSpen]

Yes it does. You simply misinterpret it through the dark glass of the doctrines of your denomination.

God had a face that Moses could not see, but he could see God's hand and back. That cannot be disputed. Claiming they are figurative contradicts the obvious and plain context of the event that transpired. If God has no actual face then Moses could not have seen it and not died but the truth is God has a literal face and if Moses saw it he would have literally died. Not a figurative face, not a figurative death.

When will you ever get it that John 1:18 (ESV) is true: 'No one has ever seen God...', and your interpretation is wrong. The fact of the matter is that when it speaks of God's face, hand and back in relation to Moses, it is a theophany, using anthropomorphic language, i.e. 'The attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object' (Oxford dictionaries).

When will you ever admit you are wrong? 'No one has ever seen God', full stop, period, end of story, but ewq1938 wants to go on and on about God being 'seen' and having a body. Your failure to understand the hermeneutics of Scripture is causing you to come to a false understanding of the essence of who God is. He DOES NOT have a body with face, hands and back. Yes, he is described as having face, hands and back, but that is the use of an anthropomorphism. Or is that too big of a word for you to understand?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Interesting isnt it ??

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Exo 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
Exo 24:11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Hmmmm

Seems as though you also are not understanding a theophany with use of anthropomorphic language. We cannot have the contradiction from the God of truth that 'no one has ever seen God' (John 1:18 ESV) and 'they saw the God of Israel' (Ex 24:10 ESV). I've already explained this latter verse above. Didn't you read that? See #526.

'Hmmmm' is hardly an exposition to understand this apparent contradiction.

Oz