Son of God?

[Justice]

I am curious as to what these other paths of logic could be, that would still fit the traditional Christian concept of only begotten Son.

They wouldn't, and that was my point.

It is your belief and that is why you posted it. It helps me understand how a traditionalist would see the logic.

With my belief, the words are still true, but the logic leads down a different path because my belief in God is different.

That's all I meant.

[Justice]

I was wondering if your friend understands that HF has a body that eats and sees and smells?

No, he does not believe this... in any shape fashion or form.

[Shelly200]

Since there are a lot of denominations, with a lot of churches, with a lot of pastor and teachers and deacons, it's easy for things to sometimes be misunderstood and misconstrued. But any denomination that believes in the Trinity in the orthodox sense believes that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one being with three persons. They might not have been able to explain it properly, but in their heads, this is what they believe. (It's sometimes hard for people to explain the Trinity, because it's not a very human, earthly quality, so it's hard for humans to explain it in human terms.) And yes - some people mistakenly fall back on the "God's ways are mysterious" explanation if they can't figure out how to explain something. God's ways *are* mysterious, but we can still explain the doctrine of the Trinity.

Here is a breakdown of the doctrine I've seen before::

1.) There is one God. (Isaiah 45:21-23; 2 Kings 19:19; James 2:19; Romans 3:29-30; 1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

2.) God the Father is God, God the Son is God, God the Holy Spirit is God. (Acts 7:59-60; Hebrews 5:9; Hebrews 1:8; John 20:28; Matthew 28:9)

3.) God the Father is not God the Son. The Holy Spirit is distinct from Both, even though He proceeds from Both. (Luke 23:46; Genesis 1:2; Acts 10:19; Acts 8:16; Acts 16:6-7; 1 Thessalonians 4:8)

4.)Nevertheless, they remain "One in Being," not separate Gods. (John 10:28-30; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Jude 1:20-21)

1 John 4:8 also describes God as Love itself. There is a good description I've seen in which it is explained that, in order for God to *be* Love, He must, at the same time, be both Lover and Beloved, *within Himself.*

In order for God to be three distinct, separate *Beings* there would have to be three Gods. Those Gods might work in harmony together, but if their beings are separate, then they are separate : three different, distinct, separate Gods. (But the Bible is frequently and continuously clear that there is only *one* God.)

Non-LDS also believe that, though Christ has a tangible body (through his unique *person* of the divinely God and Man role in salvation history), that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit *do not* have tangible bodies. John 4:24 states: "God is spirit." Hebrews 2:14-18 explains that God "partook of the same nature" (flesh and blood) as his children through the person of *Christ.* God the Father did not partake of that nature. Colossians 1:15 says that God is "invisible" and that Christ is the image of the "invisible" God. Christ, in his human nature, took on a body of flesh while God the Father did not.

Another simpler way to explain the Trinity-one that is used for children, as is the triangle analogy - is that God is like an egg. There is the yolk, the white, and the shell. But they are all an Egg.

[Justice]

An LDS poster says that Trinitarians believe that Jesus and the Father are the same person. Maureen (Trinitarian) says this is wrong, that Trinitarians believe God is three distinct persons, though one God." Vort says this means nothing. That's how Maureeen got the idea that you were saying it was okay for LDS to falsely say Trinitarians believe God is only one person, rather than try to understand the actual doctrine

It means nothing because when you say "three is one," where one is the numerical definition, words lose their meaning.

Just as saying that God can't have offspring yet He has a Son. Those words have no meaning. You can say them, and you can believe them, but if they're going to make any sense, you have to attach different definitions to them than our language offers. Either that, or you agree to not understand them, but just believe them. Falling back on "God knows more than man and can use those words if He chooses" is something there is no argument for. But, I would comment using the oppsoite logic, that God knows how we understand those words, so it doesn't make sense that He would intentionally add confusion.

So, in order to get past the deficiency of the words, you claim those words are a mystery to man.

In my view, when God speaks of His mysteries, He speaks of things that are more simple than man makes them. Man complicates things into words that have no meaning, while the truth remains a mystery to those who believe those undefinable things beacuse the mystery is solvable and simple, even so that man can understand, they just choose not to. To me, that's what equates to the "mysteries of God."

When Joseph Smith said, "God is a glorified, perfected man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens," it solved one of the greatest mysteries held by Christianity at the time.

I was genuinely curious about whether you thought Jesus Christ was literally God's Son, and how He could be if they are the same eternal being and God does not have a physical body (accounting for both natures). What I've heard so far is that it is a mystery, and in those terms (defining Son as offspring) Jesus Christ cannot be the Son of the Father spiritually or physically. I accept that as your belief.

Before I filed this in the "Trinity Belief's" folder in my mind, I wanted to be sure. Son or child can mean different things, but I think offspring is too specific to interperet around.

You believe He is the Son of the Father, but not the literal, begotten Son (offspring according to this discussion) of the Father. I will file it as such.

If you say "literal son" or "begotten son" can mean something other than "offspring" I'll have to concede, because it seems people can believe anything they can believe 3 = 1. But, all I'm saying is it does not fit with our definition of the word. To man, "begotten son" and "literal son" are synonymous with offspring. You have to believe it's a mysterios relationship, even an undescribable realtionship, in order to claim to believe the words.

[Justice]

Here is a breakdown of the doctrine I've seen before:

You did not add John 17, where Christ gives the most clear description found anywhere in scripture of how The Father and Son are One. He states it several times, and in several different ways.

Another simpler way to explain the Trinity-one that is used for children, as is the triangle analogy - is that God is like an egg. There is the yolk, the white, and the shell. But they are all an Egg.

I understand that examples are just examples, and sometimes if taken too far you can ruin the intended example. But, I can't help myself. Let's word your analogy in the terms we're speaking of.

There is the yolk, the white, and the shell. But they are all an Egg.

There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But they are all God.

I find it astounding that, even though 3 separate and distint things are lited, that all 3 things can be taken as one substance. For example, the white, the yolk, and the shell are NOT the same substance. If they were they would not be distinct. If the yolk had the same substance as the white, it, too, would be "egg white," and the yolk would no longer exist as yolk, making more white.

The yolk is part of the egg, the white is part of the egg, and the shell is part of the egg, but they are not the same substance, nor can they be and remain unique.

Now, all three parts of the egg are one in purpose, and each have a different role in their united purpose. That makes sense.

[volgadon]

In order for God to be three distinct, separate *Beings* there would have to be three Gods. Those Gods might work in harmony together, but if their beings are separate, then they are separate : three different, distinct, separate Gods. (But the Bible is frequently and continuously clear that there is only *one* God.)

Why don't we look at Maimonides on the Trinity.

It is not rare that a person aims to expound the intent of some conclusions clearly and explicitly, makes an effort to reject doubts and eliminate far-fetched interpretations, and yet the unbalanced will draw the reverse judgment of the conclusion he sought to clarify. Some such thing occured even to one of God's declarations. When the chief of the prophets wished by order of God to teach us that He is One, without associates, and to remove from our hearts those wrong doctrines that the Dualists propound, he proclaimed this fundamental: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone [Deut. 6:4]. But the Christians utilized this verse to prove that God is one of three, teaching that Lord, our God, the Lord makes three names, all followed by one, which indicates that they are three and that the three are one. Far be God from what they say in their ignorance. If this is what happened to God's proclamation, it is much more likely and to be expected to happen to statements by humans. -Moshe ben Maimon, the Rambam or Maimonides, in his The Essay on Resurrection, trans. Abraham Halkin in The Epistles of Maimonides: crisis and leadership.

It is no exaggeration to state that the Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon), or Maimonides as he is commonly reffered to in English, is one of the major figures in Jewish history, culture and thought. One of the foremost physicians and philosophers of his day, his fame spread worldwide, and he was held in great esteem even by Christians and Muslims. When facing severe tribulations, Jewish communities as distant as Morocco and Yemen sought his help and advice. As he was court physician to the Ayyubids in Cairo, with his strong political connections the Rambam could also play a vital role in his community's life, and did.

The Rambam wrote many commentaries on the Torah and the Mishnah, that codification of the Halakha, or Jewish oral law, and explained the reasons (or ta'amei hamitzvot) for the 613 commandments of the Torah on rational, philosophical grounds. His thirteen articles of faith were adopted by all Jewish communities, indeed, the 12th of them- professing complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, even were he to tarry- has become a symbol of the unbreakable Jewish spirit, being on the lips of many Treblinka inmates marching to the gas chambers.

The Rambam's lifelong work, however was that of an educator. He seeks to draw the people away from ignorance and idolatry (the two, for him, are inseparably linked) and towards the true intent of the law- knowing God.

This for him is love, an exalted, all-consuming intellectual love.

There is hardly a more fitting description of the Rambam than the title of his most famous work, the "Guide of the Perxplexed" (Dalalat al-Ha'irin).

This philosophical treatise par excellence is directed towards those torn between the conflicting worlds of traditional Judaism as passed down by Moses through the sages on the one hand, and modern philosophy and science on the other. In other words, the revealed truth of the Bible and the sages which seems to conflict with natural, inherent reason and logic, as laid out by the followers of Aristotle. While one may seem incomprehensible as opposed to the logic of the other, the Rambam attempts to bridge the two. He showed that they were not implacable enemies to each other, but went hand-in-hand.

This work, written in Arabic, was translated by others into Hebrew (Moreh Nevuchim) and Latin (Dux Neutrorum), both during the Rambam's own lifetime. Its influence was huge, even on the development of Jewish mysticism, which seems at odds with much of the Rambam's own approach, as well as influencing the Scholastics, such as Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas. Of course they did not accept it uncritically. The value of the work for them was that it showed how to accept both the Bible and Aristotle as truth without offending either. In other words, you don't have to take "because it is" as a valid answer. The Rambam showed the way to a synthesis of the two.

The opening paragraph to the Essay on Resurrection is a fascinating look at the reaction of a fierce monotheist and gifted philosopher to the doctrine of the Trinity. It shows that the Trinity- three are three yet only one- is a matter of faith rather than inherent logic.

[Shelly200]

You did not add John 17, where Christ gives the most clear description found anywhere in scripture of how The Father and Son are One. He states it several times, and in several different ways.

I understand that examples are just examples, and sometimes if taken too far you can ruin the intended example. But, I can't help myself. Let's word your analogy in the terms we're speaking of.

There is the yolk, the white, and the shell. But they are all an Egg.

There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But they are all God.

I find it astounding that, even though 3 separate and distint things are lited, that all 3 things can be taken as one substance. For example, the white, the yolk, and the shell are NOT the same substance. If they were they would not be distinct. If the yolk had the same substance as the white, it, too, would be "egg white," and the yolk would no longer exist as yolk, making more white.

The yolk is part of the egg, the white is part of the egg, and the shell is part of the egg, but they are not the same substance, nor can they be and remain unique.

Now, all three parts of the egg are one in purpose, and each have a different role in their united purpose. That makes sense.

I did mention that the egg example is used for children. So, no, it's not the best example in the world. It's very basic and simplistic.

On another note- I don't think God purposely confuses us, as you keep stating. The problem is that we try to fit God into our box, our mind, our explanations, our language, when God is outside all of that. God also has existed, and will exist, for all eternity, but humans cannot fully grasp that concept, since we live in time. God is outside of all time, which is a human invention, but not having time is something humans can't fully grasp because we live in a world in which we count time. So we use our own words to describe or explain God, even when they might not fully encompass all He is; we have no other way.

This doesn't mean that God is confusing us. It means that we are not God. If we knew everything, if we could explain everything, if we could fully see all of God's world, then we would be God too. And having a God who fit into time, space, matter, language, the material world would mean that He is not God, but Man. If God can fully be explained with and through humans means, if He exists in a human way, if He can be confined to space and time... well, then, He's not really an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, all-powerful, can-do-anything-He-wants-to God. And, therefore, is not, in my opinion, worthy of my worship, honor, or praise.

This is one issue many people run into in the LDS doctrine of beliefs: that God is an exalted man, who lived just like we do now. This idea goes contrary to what Catholics and Protestants teach about the very essence and qualities of God. God is eternal. God has always existed; He is the first Creator; no one created Him, because He is existence itself.

[jayanna]

If God does not have a body, and Jesus did not have a body until he was born to Mary, then how was Adam created in His image? How did Stephen see Jesus sitting on the right hand of God?

I think they are one like my husband and I are one, like my family is one. We are separate persons, with one purpose, not divided against each other, and when one of us is happy or unhappy, the other is also. One of the reasons we have relationships such as husband and wife, parent and child, is so that we can understand the relationships that God and His Son have. These relationships help us to grow more like Him.

Not speaking in the abstract, but concretely, I do know that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are two different people. The Holy Ghost does not have a body, and Jesus does...also their voices are different. When Jesus speaks it is from a certain place, like someone is standing next to you, but you can't see them and they are talking. His voice is sharp and clear. The Holy Spirit is a still small voice, a man's voice, that only your spirit can hear. It is a deeper voice, a bit fuzzier like a whisper. I haven't met God yet, but I think His voice (the one that comes from his literal mouth) will be different from Jesus' voice, just like my mother's is different from mine.

[Vort]

An LDS poster says that Trinitarians believe that Jesus and the Father are the same person. Maureen (Trinitarian) says this is wrong, that Trinitarians believe God is three distinct persons, though one God." Vort says this means nothing. That's how Maureeen got the idea that you were saying it was okay for LDS to falsely say Trinitarians believe God is only one person, rather than try to understand the actual doctrine

She asked a question. I answered it. To put upon me the entire conversation that came before and assume that my simple answer to her question therefore means that I support Positions X, Y, and Z seems quite presumptuous.

[maiku]

Trinity = 3 persons, one being, one God. God the Son can talk to God the Father and not be "talking to himself." Nevertheless, they are one, and trinitarians are monotheists.

With all due respect, huh?

If it's one being, how can He be talking to ANYONE but Himself?

It's like I'm talking to my reflexion in the mirror but am claiming NOT to be talking to myself.

If you are you and you're talking to you, you're talking to YOUrself.

[Hala401]

As you know, I have been having on-going discussions with a friend at work about various Christian beliefs.

He is Trinitarian, and I proposed the following question to him, to which he did not have an answer, or his answer was "I don't know." I'm wondering if any of our Trinitarian friends here can help provide an answer.

The entire premise behind the Bible is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. God speaks from the heavens and says "This is my beloved Son: hear him." (Luke 9:35). "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." (John 3:16).

With my limited understanding of the Trinity I come away with 2 main points:

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is/are spirit, and has existed always just as they are. They cannot have offspring, because if they could there would be more than One God.

2. Since God is a spirit, He does not have a physical body of flesh and bones as we do, or as the resurrected Jesus did.

Assuming these 2 statements are true (my friend acknowledged they were), then, according to this belief, if God cannot have offspring, and does not have a physical body to provide genetics from, how is Jesus the Son of God?

Thank you for any input.

I hope that you do not mind my intrusion to this discussion, but this is of interest to me.

You are saying that God is a Spirit, so he does not have body? Can he not do as he wishes? Do we humans make rule book for God? I thought that Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ?

In studies with Missionaries, I thought that we decided that there is God, Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ all three separate but in complete agreement with each other?

[Maureen]

She asked a question. I answered it. To put upon me the entire conversation that came before and assume that my simple answer to her question therefore means that I support Positions X, Y, and Z seems quite presumptuous.

And then you asked another question:

Where did you get this idea?

Which PC kindly answered.

M.

[Vort]

And then you asked another question:

Where did you get this idea?

Which PC kindly answered.

Indeed he did. The point is, your inference was unjustified.

[Snow]

In order for God to be three distinct, separate *Beings* there would have to be three Gods. Those Gods might work in harmony together, but if their beings are separate, then they are separate : three different, distinct, separate Gods.

Says who? God?

Are you claiming that God lacks the ability to be one God in three distinct beings or that you, Shelly, refuse to allow him to be?

(But the Bible is frequently and continuously clear that there is only *one* God.)

You've read the Old Testament, right?

[Shelly200]

Says who? God?

Are you claiming that God lacks the ability to be one God in three distinct beings or that you, Shelly, refuse to allow him to be?

You've read the Old Testament, right?

What I'm saying is that if God is three *beings* then He is three Gods. Period.

This is why the doctrine of the Trinity works: because God is one Being, with three persons *within that one Being.* If God were three separate, distinct, complete-within-themselves beings, then He would be three separate, distinct, complete-within-themselves gods.

And yes, thank you, I *have* read the Old Testament (the Catholic OT, which includes the 7 deuterocanonical books)... *and* the New Testament, *and* the Book of Mormon, *and* half of the Doctrine & Covenants. The first three (OT, NT, BOM) frequently make mention of God being the only God. It is only in later writings of Joseph Smith that the idea of the Godhead in the LDS sense gets started.

A few examples (out of many)::

Isaiah 45:18: "I am the LORD, and there is no other."

Isaiah 44:6: "I am the first and the last; apart from me there is no god."

2 Kings 19:19: "...that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou, O Lord, art God alone."

Isaiah 45:21: "Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior..."

James 2:19: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder."

Ephesians 4:6: "... one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all."

Romans 3:39-30: "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one"

1 Corinthians 8:5-6: "For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -- as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords" -- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."

Note that in 1 Corinthians, the other gods elsewhere spoken of are called "so-called" gods; therefore when the OT speaks of there being "other gods" to the Jews, it doesn't mean that those things were actually gods. So the Commandment given to the Jews to worship no other gods but God makes more sense in the light of the Oneness of God -- God is I AM WHO I AM. (He is existence Himself.)

Note also that Isaiah 44 mentions that God is the "first and the last," meaning that God has always existed and will always exist. No one created Him; He is the first and ultimate Creator.

God is the Creator. The Creator of space and time. To say that God occupies space is to render Him NOT the Creator. He would be rendered subject to His creation. Therefore, we believe that God the Father does *not* have a tangible body. The person of Christ *does* have a tangible (perfect, transfigured) body. And yet, God can still be with those who are gathered ("where two or three come together in my name , there am I with them" - Matthew 18:20), because He can be with them in other forms, in the other persons of God, exactly because He is not bound to the limits of humanity. That is how Christ can be present in the Eucharist (as taught by the Catholic Church), and still stay in Heaven. And having a God that is bound by the laws of physics (i.e. - having God the Father have a tangible body) means that He *can't* be all-knowing, or outside the realm of time and space. But that is strictly refuted in Luke 12:6-7; Psalm 90:4; and 2 Peter 3:8 -- verses which explain that God knows everything and is outside the realm of time.

For me, it is much easier to wrap my mind around there being one God in three persons -- having one Being, with three persons within that Being -- than it is to say that God is one, but also has two other Beings -- that there are three separate, distinct, complete beings of God (such as you, I, and my friend are three distinct beings) that are still one God... they're just one God in purpose. For me, the second notion is polytheism (which the LDS church claims to be anyway...), and the first notion is monotheism. And since the Bible repeatedly says there are no other gods beside God, it seems to me that monotheism is the way to go. But with the LDS doctrine of the Godhead (among other doctrines), the LDS church cannot be monotheistic.

[Hala401]

Um, what about 1 Cor 13:12 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Perhaps none of use understand this fully? Are we perhaps trying to fully explain things when we do not know the whole truth? I am content with waiting for God to present himself as he is when he is ready.

[prisonchaplain]

If God does not have a body, and Jesus did not have a body until he was born to Mary, then how was Adam created in His image? How did Stephen see Jesus sitting on the right hand of God?

You're assuming we cannot see spirits. We know we can--Moses saw God's backside, angels appear almost as men. There is no reason to think that spirits cannot be see, simply because they are not encased in human flesh.

[prisonchaplain]

She asked a question. I answered it. To put upon me the entire conversation that came before and assume that my simple answer to her question therefore means that I support Positions X, Y, and Z seems quite presumptuous.

From my perspective...and I am guessing Maureen's...You seemed to have jumped into the middle of a conversation and added to it. Only post #1 happens in a vacuum.

[prisonchaplain]

With all due respect, huh?

If it's one being, how can He be talking to ANYONE but Himself?

Two persons are talking, though they exist as one God.

Really, what it comes down to is that Trinitarians are monotheists, who also believe that Jesus is God. That can work in several ways. Jehovah's Witnesses say Jesus is a lesser deity--a god. Modalists say that Jesus is God, and he serves in different modes, or roles--as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. My sense is that many LDS arguments thought to be against the Trinity are actually against modalism. Indeed, why was Jesus praying to himself?

Trinitarians say that God is one being, yet three persons. We distinguish between these two by saying the being is God's essence, and his singular status as the all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere present GOD. The persons are distinct and sovereign. They are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each is his own, yet they are one God--not a mere united group, but an essential ONE.

No one has to agree with this. It's good if you know what you are disagreeing with, though.

[Snow]

You're assuming we cannot see spirits. We know we can--Moses saw God's backside, angels appear almost as men.

We KNOW we can?

You mean that you're convinced that you can. It's hardly a matter of knowledge.

There is no reason to think that spirits cannot be see, simply because they are not encased in human flesh.

Seriously? No reason?

Without being too technical "seeing" requires an object off of which light is bounced. Tell me how that works with a spirit.

[prisonchaplain]

Um, what about 1 Cor 13:12 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Perhaps none of use understand this fully? Are we perhaps trying to fully explain things when we do not know the whole truth? I am content with waiting for God to present himself as he is when he is ready.

Hala, traditionalists get worked up over this because the LDS doctrine of Godhead seems to walk away from monotheism. Indeed, most LDS posting here seem to believe their doctrine embraces henotheism (the belief that there may be more than one god, but only one is the object of our group's worship). Antis accuse you of polytheism, of course.

Jews and Muslims argue that even the Trinity is not true monotheism. We rigorously disagree, and defend our faith in one and only one God. When LDS come along and say, "We Christians believe in three God-beings who are a united Godhead," we see that as jumping off the monotheistic cliff--something we never want to do.

NEVERTHELESS, I agree with you that God is greater than us, and we ought not be so quick to insist on a thorough understanding of who he is. He has revealed himself, but not fully. Two me, it's like describing 3-dimensions to a two-dimensional being--it only works so far.

[prisonchaplain]

We KNOW we can?

You mean that you're convinced that you can. It's hardly a matter of knowledge.

Seriously? No reason?

Without being too technical "seeing" requires an object off of which light is bounced. Tell me how that works with a spirit.

I'll just split the difference and say that there are several passages in the Bible in which the authors claimed to have seen either God or his messengers. We are told that God is Spirit, and yet, again, Moses says he saw his backside. Likewise, we know not whether angels are flesh-beings or not, though most would say they are not. Nevertheless, many biblical writers say they have seen them.

Better?

[mordorbund]

...

In my view, when God speaks of His mysteries, He speaks of things that are more simple than man makes them. Man complicates things into words that have no meaning, while the truth remains a mystery to those who believe those undefinable things beacuse the mystery is solvable and simple, even so that man can understand, they just choose not to. To me, that's what equates to the "mysteries of God."

When Joseph Smith said, "God is a glorified, perfected man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens," it solved one of the greatest mysteries held by Christianity at the time.

In my view, when God speaks of His mysteries, He speaks of things that can only be revealed. A popular LDS analogy would be the mystery of salt. You can sit there and describe salt to me, but until I experience it comes off as nonsense. How can there be a "good bitter" taste? If you're lucky, I've been to the beach and experienced salt that way (but not on food). Why would I want my food to taste like ocean? Or when you tell me salt is salty, you've just sent me in a tautological circle. You keep assuring me salt's good on food, but I'm just don't get it with your non-descriptive words.

I think we (as Christians) hit problems when we have the mysteries expounded by the uninitiated.

[Snow]

I'll just split the difference and say that there are several passages in the Bible in which the authors claimed to have seen either God or his messengers. We are told that God is Spirit, and yet, again, Moses says he saw his backside. Likewise, we know not whether angels are flesh-beings or not, though most would say they are not. Nevertheless, many biblical writers say they have seen them.

Better?

Better yes.

However,

Being spirit does not preclude one from also being flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit is God and is spirit only but Jesus, like you and I, has a spirit and also a body of flesh and bone. Numerous passages in the Bible, OT and NT, seem to indicate that God the Father also has body parts to go along with his spirit.

Moreover, you likely believe that spirit is spirit and matter is matter and one is not the other. Mormons, on the other hand believe that spirit is matter,

[Shelly200]

Better yes.

However,

Being spirit does not preclude one from also being flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit is God and is spirit only but Jesus, like you and I, has a spirit and also a body of flesh and bone. Numerous passages in the Bible, OT and NT, seem to indicate that God the Father also has body parts to go along with his spirit.

Moreover, you likely believe that spirit is spirit and matter is matter and one is not the other. Mormons, on the other hand believe that spirit is matter,

Snow - Other than the "made in God's image" verse, I'd like to see some verses that prove God the Father has any kind of physical body. Most of the verses I've seen explain the Father as being the "invisible" God... not the visible, physical God.