meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | Taiwan | |
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 8 months |
| seen | 18 hours ago | |
| stats | profile views | 169 |
I often chose best answers not because they are the best, but because I have to choose a best answer. Please, don't take offense to it.
|
Jan 27 |
comment |
Relationships between God the Father, Mary and the two natures of Jesus Christ Thank you for this answer! |
|
Jan 23 |
comment |
Why did Paul say “I am pure from the blood of all men”? Why would he then need to tell the elders from Ephesus about it at the very last time meeting them? They knew it all too well that Paul hadn't killed anyone since his conversion. It just doesn't make any sense mentioning that to them. |
|
Jan 22 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Jan 17 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones "There is considerable debate about whether "God" in the Old Testament refers to Jesus or His Father"" - I don't quite see why you are saying it here. How is this related to what is said in the answer? Can you, please, elaborate? |
|
Jan 17 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones "NT quite consistently reaffirms that ... the Father is invisible eternal spirit only" - Where exactly does NT say states that the Father is invisible spirit only? |
|
Jan 17 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones Even though I don't see much OT hermeneutics in your answer, I must thank you for bringing up a very strong logical point, which is in the very first sentence of your answer. The only case, in which this point wouldn't work is God's body of flesh and bones' not being products of the universe. |
|
Jan 16 |
revised |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones deleted 1 characters in body |
|
Jan 16 |
revised |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones added 8 characters in body |
|
Jan 16 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @Matt - "That's fine, but it has nothing to do with using the word "Mormon"" - In informing you of my intention to take all the words "Mormon" out, I was meaning to say that I was about to get rid of any reference to this particular group of people that claim to be Christians and the only true church on earth. It could be any of such words like "Mormons", "LDS", "Followers of Joseph Smith", "LDS members", etc. - it just turned out that in my question I was using only the word "Mormons" as a reference. I am sorry for not being clear enough in my wording. |
|
Jan 16 |
revised |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones deleted 60 characters in body; edited tags |
|
Jan 16 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @Matt - Okay. Let me re-edit it. I will completely take the words "Mormons" out. In this case, hopefully, it will not sound combative then |
|
Jan 16 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @MaskedPlant - "It also feels combative to then ask them to reconcile their..." - I am afraid I don't get the grammar in this sentence and, therefore, don't quite get its meaning. Can you, please, re-write or explain it to me? |
|
Jan 16 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @MaskedPlant - "I think the question is confusing, and combative because it is asking for a specific belief of a specific religion, to reconcile that belief with things they do not believe in" - That sentence about God the Father's omnipresence was not written by me. It was added later on by Affable Geek. I think I need to delete it. |
|
Jan 16 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @Matt - "The question should be either about Mormonism belief of God's omnipresence, or hermeneutics but not both" - Why omnipresence in the first place? Why Mormonism in the first place? I wasn't at all interested in M-nism concept of God's omnipresence when I was asking this question. In fact, I wasn't interested in M-nism at all! My whole interest was about one particular belief (that God has always possessed a physical body) in the light of the OT. It just happens so that Mormons have this belief and have some reasoning for it (I cited it in my question), but my quest. is not about them. |
|
Jan 16 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @Matt - "...last paragraph, about hermeneutics of the OT, doesn't make sense in context because Mormons accept more than just the Old Testament, obviously. Why must there be points to "allow" the belief there?" - I didn't say "there must be some points". In fact, the whole question is whether the OT has the room for such a belief or not. Sure, Mormons accept more than just OT. This whole belief of theirs (that God has always possessed a body of flesh and bones) comes altogether from the book of Mormons, not from OT or NT. But my question is not about the book of Mormons, but about the OT. |
|
Jan 15 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @Matt - "...the sentence ending in a qu. mark doesn't match the comments" - This was not my sentence. It was added by Affable Geek, who, ironically, having added it later on was the first one to express his dissatisfaction with the combativeness of this question. |
|
Jan 15 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @Matt - I think the relevance is already described in my question: This belief, which happens to be one of the critical doctrines in Mormonism, holds that God possessed the body of flesh and bones even prior to God's becoming flesh, that is prior to Christ's incarnation. The time before Christ's incarnation is the Old Testament time, thus, according to this doctrine in Mormonism, in the Old Testament times God already possessed a body of bones and flesh. That is the relevance. I think it's rather clear (unless you meant some kind of some "deeper" relevance, which I, however, didn't mean). |
|
Jan 15 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones Thanks for your answer. "The OT is very clear that any static image or representation of the Divine is a very bad thing" - I agree with this, but I am afraid that the OT's prohibition on image-like representation of God doesn't prove outright that He did not possess at that time the body of flesh and bones. After all, we have some cases in OT that, despite this prohibition, lean to support that idea - I mean cases like Jehovah's passing in front of Moses in Exodus 34:6 or His eating some physical food (butter, milk and beef) in front of Abraham in Genesis 18:8 |
|
Jan 15 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @AffableGeek - Why do you think it's combative? It just happens so that this belief is found in Mormons' teaching, but it could be any group. In fact, it was not from Mormons that I 1st heard about this belief, but they gave me more of reasoning supporting this view - so I mentioned them and their reasoning in my question. I wonder, if I didn't use the word "Mormons" in my question, would you still consider it as combative? All I wanted to do was to check out this belief against the OT. Did I really have to be politically correct and refrain from this idea just because it's someone's belief? |
|
Jan 15 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @AffableGeek - "I'm also strongly mulling a vtc" - What is vtc? |
