LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

[ViaCrucis]

Wait a minute here...if that's your 'proof' of Mormonism's conception of the afterlife being Biblical, then why do they have flesh? It says "flesh and blood", not just blood.

I've heard this even in non-Mormon circles, the argument usually goes the Gospel of Luke Jesus says He has "flesh and bones", and thus resurrected bodies have "flesh and bones" but not "flesh and blood". I don't particularly find this argument convincing, as I think it is missing the whole point of what the Apostle is saying by using the expression "flesh and blood" here.

Of course the Apostle is talking about the present mortal and corruptible condition and reality of the body; the body must be transformed in the resurrection, but as we are now in our present fallen, mortal condition we cannot share in the fullness of what is to come. That's why the Apostle adds, "neither does the corruptible inherit the incorruptible" and then proceeds to speak of the transformation that occurs at the resurrection; when "this mortal puts on immortality" and "this corruptible puts on incorruption". The body is changed, transformed, in the resurrection.

It really has nothing whatsoever to do with the material "components" of the body.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you, CryptoLutheran.

I want to rate that as "Informative", it's just...

 

[He is the way]

Wait a minute here...if that's your 'proof' of Mormonism's conception of the afterlife being Biblical, then why do they have flesh? It says "flesh and blood", not just blood.

Jesus has flesh and bones:

(New Testament | Luke 24:39)

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.

 

[He is the way]

I've heard this even in non-Mormon circles, the argument usually goes the Gospel of Luke Jesus says He has "flesh and bones", and thus resurrected bodies have "flesh and bones" but not "flesh and blood". I don't particularly find this argument convincing, as I think it is missing the whole point of what the Apostle is saying by using the expression "flesh and blood" here.

Of course the Apostle is talking about the present mortal and corruptible condition and reality of the body; the body must be transformed in the resurrection, but as we are now in our present fallen, mortal condition we cannot share in the fullness of what is to come. That's why the Apostle adds, "neither does the corruptible inherit the incorruptible" and then proceeds to speak of the transformation that occurs at the resurrection; when "this mortal puts on immortality" and "this corruptible puts on incorruption". The body is changed, transformed, in the resurrection.

It really has nothing whatsoever to do with the material "components" of the body.

-CryptoLutheran

It is not that hard to figure out.

 

[dzheremi]

It is not that hard to figure out.

Hard to believe that anyone would seriously argue that, though. "Flesh and blood" is a well-known idiom that actually comes from an Old English translation of the Bible that predates the KJV by about 600 years, where it has the general meaning of belonging to mankind. So it has absolutely nothing to do with the material components of the human body, as CryptoLutheran has already rightly pointed out. I only asked the question that I did because it seems like it must have to do with exactly those material components in the Mormon conception of things, from the way you presented the verse you gave in the reply I was responding to.

 

[BiblicalFollower]

Thank you, CryptoLutheran.

I want to rate that as "Informative", it's just...

Hello fellow christian. I did read some of your posts and they were very informative. I tried to pm you regarding one advise I need from a man with such knowleage but that option is not avalible for me. Could I kindly ask you to pm me?

Thank you very much and have a blessed day

 

[Peter1000]

Your lack of understanding is not dependent upon the depth of any person's ability to articulate it. Some have explained it in great detail. Others have posted this simple diagram. You just don't get it.

This is level one teaching. We could even use this diagram in the Church of Jesus Christ to teach our newly baptized members.

Now teach your people just exactly how they are one, and can still be in 3 places at the same time. Explain homoousios to them with a lot more clarity than you have for me. Explain how one of the 3 has a body of flesh and bone and the other 2 do not, but they are made of the same essence.

Good Luck.

 

[Peter1000]

We're not talking about the existence of God (I'm going to assume that we both believe God exists). We're talking about creation. God is not created, so this is unrelated to our discussion.



No. But again, that's not what we're talking about. Why are you attempting to change the topic?



God created the world. Our disagreement is not over this, but how He did it: the majority position in Christianity since a very early date has been creation ex nihilo (from nothing), precisely because of the impermissibility of having God be reliant on pre-existing matter in order to create things. That is against the witness of the scriptures wherein God says "let there be _____", and then it is.



By leaving Mormonism.

I am interested to know that if God is not nothing, then you must believe he is something. What do you believe something is?

 

[Peter1000]

I've heard this even in non-Mormon circles, the argument usually goes the Gospel of Luke Jesus says He has "flesh and bones", and thus resurrected bodies have "flesh and bones" but not "flesh and blood". I don't particularly find this argument convincing, as I think it is missing the whole point of what the Apostle is saying by using the expression "flesh and blood" here.

Of course the Apostle is talking about the present mortal and corruptible condition and reality of the body; the body must be transformed in the resurrection, but as we are now in our present fallen, mortal condition we cannot share in the fullness of what is to come. That's why the Apostle adds, "neither does the corruptible inherit the incorruptible" and then proceeds to speak of the transformation that occurs at the resurrection; when "this mortal puts on immortality" and "this corruptible puts on incorruption". The body is changed, transformed, in the resurrection.

It really has nothing whatsoever to do with the material "components" of the body.

-CryptoLutheran

Sorry, but of course the Apostle is not talking about the present mortal and corruptible condition and the reality of the body.

The Apostle is telling us is in straight-forward language that the transformed or resurrected Jesus had a body of flesh and bone. If his words do not convince you that in the here-after our bodies will be made up of flesh and bone, then I cannot help you. For the bible makes it very clear. Jesus even ate with the apostles to prove the point, way beyond argument.

And again, this was not his mortal corruptible body he had while he was ministering on earth. This was his perfect resurrected body that he was showing his disciples. That is why we also believe as the apostles believe that Jesus as well as all of us will have equal bodies of flesh and bone and spirit in the eternities to follow.

 

[Peter1000]

Which means the same thing.



Quite the opposite in fact. It's one of the most important and strongest Christological texts for Trinitarians.



No. Because the Lord's resurrected body is a resurrected human body. There's no such thing as a "divine physical appearance".

-CryptoLutheran

I agree with natitude, God is unseen, rather than invisible. Invisible means you can never see Him because He is invisible. But I believe that He simply chooses to be not seen, but if you were to see Him, you would see Him as as a Man.

As the scrptures say, God create man in his image and in his likeness.

Jesus, who has a resurrected body of flesh and bone, is the express image of his Father, God the Father.

So invisible, no, but only chooses to be unseen, which are certainly not the same.

 

[Peter1000]

Wait a minute here...if that's your 'proof' of Mormonism's conception of the afterlife being Biblical, then why do they have flesh? It says "flesh and blood", not just blood.

You just have to believe us when we say, that the flesh and bone that Jesus enjoys today as a resurrected being, is light years away from the mortal flesh and bones that we have now.

So although it is flesh and bone, it is resurrected flesh and bone, which allowed Jesus to come through a wall when the doors were closed, but was able to be felt by his apostles and even ate with his apostles to prove the point that his flesh and bones, had many properties that our mortal flesh and bones do not enjoy. But nonetheless, flesh and bone infused with spirit.

 

[BigDaddy4]

This is level one teaching. We could even use this diagram in the Church of Jesus Christ to teach our newly baptized members.

Now teach your people just exactly how they are one, and can still be in 3 places at the same time. Explain homoousios to them with a lot more clarity than you have for me. Explain how one of the 3 has a body of flesh and bone and the other 2 do not, but they are made of the same essence.

Good Luck.

Well, Peter, that's as basic as it gets and you still can't understand it. Worse, your church uses it to teach falsehoods. God doesn't like false teachers. How can you teach something you don't understand? To borrow your church's philosophy, why should you get the "meat" when you cannot even grasp the "milk"?

 

[dzheremi]

"Now teach your people just exactly how they are one, and can still be in 3 places at the same time."

 

[Peter1000]

Well, Peter, that's as basic as it gets and you still can't understand it. Worse, your church uses it to teach falsehoods. God doesn't like false teachers. How can you teach something you don't understand? To borrow your church's philosophy, why should you get the "meat" when you cannot even grasp the "milk"?

You are right, this is so basic that even Mormons can use this diagram to teach their newly baptized members. Try to delve deeper and you really have problems.
So our simple wording works very well. There are 3 in the Godhead. God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ have bodies of flesh and bone. The Holy Spirit has a body of spirit so he can enter into you and witness to your spirit the truth of all things. The 3 are separate and distinct but have the same divine essence, which makes them one. They are also one in that they are united in the same purpose.

Try to duplicate this simplicity in your description of the Godhead.

 

[Peter1000]

"Now teach your people just exactly how they are one, and can still be in 3 places at the same time."

.
You say that God is not nothing. So apparently you believe he is something. Describe what this something is? Thank you.

 

[dzheremi]

.
You say that God is not nothing. So apparently you believe he is something. Describe what this something is? Thank you.

This has what to do with either the thread topic or the specific post I posted that in response to?

You've already been given all the description of God a Christian is required to affirm and since you don't understand it, you want to argue about it. I don't want to, and furthermore I think there's a certain wisdom to keeping these things to a minimum with regard to what we can say in defining our faith. In this regard, the purpose of the Christian theology and faith is not to know a bunch of stuff about God (hence the Creed is a minimum outline), but to actually know God (this is one of the many reasons why the popular saying is that a true theologian is one who prays well). That is what Christ says in His own prayer to His Father in John 17: "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

Following this, God is not something, but rather someone.

 

[He is the way]

This is the correct organization for Christ's Church:

(New Testament | Ephesians 4:11 - 13)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

[Peter1000]

This has what to do with either the thread topic or the specific post I posted that in response to?

You've already been given all the description of God a Christian is required to affirm and since you don't understand it, you want to argue about it. I don't want to, and furthermore I think there's a certain wisdom to keeping these things to a minimum with regard to what we can say in defining our faith. In this regard, the purpose of the Christian theology and faith is not to know a bunch of stuff about God (hence the Creed is a minimum outline), but to actually know God (this is one of the many reasons why the popular saying is that a true theologian is one who prays well). That is what Christ says in His own prayer to His Father in John 17: "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

Following this, God is not something, but rather someone.

I think the words you are looking for is "give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.

You are right about eternal life is knowing God, so if you do not know His make-up, then do you know Him? If you cannot tell me whether God is made of matter or not, then do you know him?

We do not shy away from saying that God is made of flesh and bone and spirit, therefore He has mass, and He is made up of matter, therefore matter has existed as long as God has.

I know that is heretical for you, but you will have to let me know what you think God is made of, to see if you actually believe He is someone with substance/matter, or something else that does not have matter. Remember that air is made up of matter.

If you wish not to, fine.

 

[BigDaddy4]

So our simple wording works very well. There are 3 in the Godhead.

This is where you start to go off the rails. There is only One God. You go downhill from there in your false teachings. Which do not follow the diagram at all. Your "milk" is spoiled!

 

[dzheremi]

I think the words you are looking for is "give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.

No. That's not what I was meaning to say, and I don't know what it has to do with what you asked me or with my reply.

You are right about eternal life is knowing God, so if you do not know His make-up, then do you know Him? If you cannot tell me whether God is made of matter or not, then do you know him?

You would think that if it was so necessary to know what 'material' God is made out of, Jesus would've put that in the prayer. Instead He says "That they may know You."

We do not shy away from saying that God is made of flesh and bone and spirit, therefore He has mass, and He is made up of matter, therefore matter has existed as long as God has.

An erroneous conclusion built on faulty and frankly quite bizarre premises. No Christian sect anywhere ever has argued for any affirmation about God because "He has mass". That's the weirdest thing.

I know that is heretical for you, but you will have to let me know what you think God is made of, to see if you actually believe He is someone with substance/matter, or something else that does not have matter.

Here's why I don't want to get into this with you, Peter: you and I have actually already spent many, many, many, many, many, many, MAAAAAAAAAANY hours discussing what substance (from subtantia, the Latin translation of the Greek ousia) means when we use it in this theological context, and the fact that you are once again posting things like this tells me that it was all for naught, and you just don't understand it, and so trying yet again will not yield any better result, as there's novel way to make the same point, precisely because this is the theological vocabulary that we have to discuss these very topics. I've tried over and over, and it's just not happening.

So yeah, I'm gonna have to pass on this one. I'm sorry. I just don't want to have a stroke or something in the middle of the pandemic when there's no space in the ER for anyone but covid patients, so I need to watch my blood pressure.

Remember that air is made up of matter.

Remember that air is not God.