The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[ewq1938]

Oh, that was your point? No wonder I didn't get it.
Your narrow use of person is your problem. There is more than just one connotation for the word and using it with only YOUR accepted connotation just makes your view narrow and ununiformed, or unwilling to be informed.

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

God is a triune being and as such HAS Spirit, Soul, and Body, to use your words.

No, that is not what I believe. God the Father and God the Son have Spirit, Soul, and Body according to scripture.

We don't go to heaven when we die, so this shows another uninformed POV on your part.

You are uninformed if you doubt that the saved go to heaven after dying. You don't know what you are talking about. You need much more scriptural maturity.

We won't ever SEE God the Father until He inhabits the NEW Jerusalem.

Incorrect.

Nobody has EVER seen God.

lol, so you deny scripture?

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.

All men have seen is the physical manifestation of God, until Jesus was born, who is the incarnation of God.

You contradict yourself.

ALL of this is Christianity 101, so apparently you never learned the basics, and as such it would be impossible to have an informed discussion with one who doesn't even know the basics. You would do well to heed Oz and others here who actually KNOW God.

Your words have no weight since you have repeatedly shown your scriptural ignorance. Don't speak of Christianity 101 when never having completed it.

 

[OzSpen]

Ever heard of avoiding a post? That's what you have done, but you had no choice in light of multiple scriptures that disprove your personal belief about God. The weight of the truth of the scriptures is on my side because I have studied this a long time and in depth to find the truth. I admit it was easy for me because I had no preconceived beliefs to defend or overcome regarding this issue.

It was nothing more than your rave that proved not a thing. It was creation out of nothing. You invented your interpretation of Scriptures. I don't fall into that kind of trap.

If you invent like that again, I'll not bother with responding.

You had no preconceived beliefs to defend??? What a joke!

 

[ewq1938]

It was nothing more than your rave that proved not a thing. It was creation out of nothing. You invented your interpretation of Scriptures. I don't fall into that kind of trap.

If you invent like that again, I'll not bother with responding.

You had no preconceived beliefs to defend??? What a joke!

Almost funny I guess. My position is soundly proven, no solid opposition which is no surprise. The scriptures are too strong to be properly opposed.

 

[Deborah_]

Too many of these 'proof-texts' for God having a physical body are reports of visions. It cannot be assumed that these equate to physical reality - otherwise we would also have to say that Jesus is literally a Lamb with seven eyes and seven horns...

There are other possible explanations for the 'physical' apparitions in the Old Testament as well. The Son was incarnated once in time and space - but He returned to heaven as a man, and it could well be that His 'eternal' being is also as physical man. He could then 'step into' our time at any point, even 'before' His historical incarnation.

 

[ewq1938]

Too many of these 'proof-texts' for God having a physical body are reports of visions. It cannot be assumed that these equate to physical reality - otherwise we would also have to say that Jesus is literally a Lamb with seven eyes and seven horns...

Firstly, a "vision" doesn't equate to seeing lies or non truths...

Second, metaphoric language is easy to spot.

The Father has a body, it is well documented. It is peoples beliefs about Him that are the only issue.

 

[OzSpen]

lol, so you deny scripture?

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.

This is what happens when you don't do your exegesis and exposition of a text such as Exodus 24:11.

Gleason Archer has a sound explanation of the biblical position on these verses:

What is the explanation of Exodus 24:9-11 – the revelation of God enthroned to the elders of Israel who accompanied Moses to Mount Sinai?

According to Exodus 24:1, the Lord invited the seventy appointed elders of the Twelve Tribes to accompany Moses, Aaron, and his two sons, and to ascend the holy mountain for a certain distance up its slope, following at a suitable distance behind Moses. The purpose of this audience before the King of the Universe was to consecrate them for their holy task of assisting in the government of God’s people.

It should be borne in mind that according to the earlier proclamation in Exodus 19:12-13, neither man nor beast was permitted even to touch or set foot on the holy mountain, under the penalty of death. Yet for this solemn occasion the seventy elders, along with Aaron and his sons, were permitted to gaze on the glory of God seated in blazing splendour on a sapphire throne. Normally they would have been struck dead for climbing even the lower reaches of Sinai, but in this case they were granted special permission to do so. Normally also it was impossible for mortal man to look on the glorious presence of God directly, without being smitten with instant death: “For there shall no man see me, and live” (Exod. 33:20). And so it is stated in Exodus 24:11 that “upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did not eat and drink.” That is to say, they all were permitted to partake of the sacred meal in view of God’s throne on Mount Sinai; and they survived the exposure to His holy presence without any damage to themselves or loss of life.

It should perhaps be added that what was seen in this theophany was a glorious representation of God in His regal splendour, not the essence of God Himself; for that has never been vouchsafed to human eyes (John 1:18) [Gleason L Archer 1982. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House), p. 124].

We know that this Exodus 24:9-11 experience was not seeing God face to face. How do we know? Exodus 33:20 (ESV) makes that crystal clear in what God said to Moses: 'You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live'.

Would you please engage in serious exposition of a text rather than your quoting it without explanation of context?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The point was the personality originates from the spirit and soul. Again, a person is composed of three things, body soul and spirit. The Holy Spirit doesn't qualify for personhood. A spirit does not have a body (no flesh or bones) according to Christ, who was and is a complete person having body soul and spirit after the resurrection. So, it is the Holy Spirit not the Holy Person.

When we die and go to heaven, we shall see two persons that are our God, the Father and the Son. There will not be a third person standing or sitting there as God.

This is a creation out of your own mind. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is a question begging logical fallacy.

How does this fallacy work?

Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

This is how ewq uses the question begging fallacy:

ewq: A person is composed of three things: body, soul, and spirit.

Oz: How do I know that is true?

ewq: Because I know that personality arises from soul and spirit.

Oz: Why should I believe this about personality?

ewq: Because ewq told you so.

This is fallacious, circular reasoning that falls into the hole of illogic. We cannot have a logical discussion on this forum when you invent your own version of personality like this and engage in the use of this logical fallacy.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Almost funny I guess. My position is soundly proven, no solid opposition which is no surprise. The scriptures are too strong to be properly opposed.

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?

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

Your doctrine of God conforms with that of Mormonism. Here they defend your view of God in, 'The Nature of God / Corporeality of God'. This is a Mormon source and it aligns with what you have been stating in this thread about the corporeality of God - God having a body. Thus, your view of God is from that of the cult of Mormonism.

To refute the idea that God has a physical body, see, 'Does God have a physical body?'

Are you a Mormon or Mormon sympathiser?

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

We know that this Exodus 24:9-11 experience was not seeing God face to face. How do we know? Exodus 33:20 (ESV) makes that crystal clear in what God said to Moses: 'You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live'.

Actually Moses couldnt look upon Gods face, so God hid him in teh cleft of a rock til lhe passed and Moses saw him from behind.

Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Exo 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

But now we can. Isnt Jesus teh best..

 

[OzSpen]

Actually Moses couldnt look upon Gods face, so God hid him in teh cleft of a rock til lhe passed and Moses saw him from behind.

Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Exo 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

But now we can. Isnt Jesus teh best..

We CANNOT see God the Father, face to face.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Firstly, a "vision" doesn't equate to seeing lies or non truths...

Second, metaphoric language is easy to spot.

The Father has a body, it is well documented. It is peoples beliefs about Him that are the only issue.

The Father has a body is well documented in Mormon theology. See 'The Nature of God / Corporeality of God', a Mormon promotional piece of literature. You are promoting a view of God that is way outside of orthodox Christianity and you should know that.

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

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

A view is being promoted on this forum by ewq1938 that God has a body. This document from a Mormon Handbook demonstrates the contrast between the Bible's teaching and that of Mormonism. 'God has a body' is Mormon false theology.

That God has a body was taught by Mormon founder, Joseph Smith. This harmonises with the Mormon view that God was formerly a mortal man (see the link to Mormon Handbook above). Joseph Smith taught that God has a body in Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 130:22)

Beware of teaching that associates the God of Christianity with God having a body. It is unorthodox and is a promotion of a Mormon view of the nature of God.

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

We CANNOT see God the Father, face to face.

well not those who have not put on the righteousness of Christ, no they cant.

I wonder if Jesus was just wasting His time??

But this shoots down there lie in flames.

Joh_4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

In all His Love

 

[OzSpen]

well not those who have not put on the righteousness of Christ, no they cant.

I wonder if Jesus was just wasting His time??

But this shoots down there lie in flames.

Joh_4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

In all His Love

So do you see God face to face?

 

[mjrhealth]

Once.

 

[OzSpen]

Once.

When was that and how did it happen?

We know that it was not God you saw because this is what the Scriptures declare: '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' (John 1:18 NIV). Jesus has made God known, but whomever you saw, it was NOT God. Otherwise, you make the Scripture of John 1:18 a lie. Do you have superior knowledge to that of John 1:18?

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

Can a person be a Christian and not be baptised?

Oz, biblically, and looking at early church history, there was no such thing as a Christian who had not been baptized. Obviously, because of all of the confusion about this subject today, it is a different situation. Personally, I believe that a person who is ignorant of the biblical teaching on baptism can still know God's grace and salvation. However, I think we have an obligation to teach what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that all who believe ought to be baptized and that this is the point in which a person is cleansed by God, brought into the church, clothed with Christ and receives the Holy Spirit.

 

[Wormwood]

No, understanding the Trinity is not a core of Christianity. The core is Christ and accepting him as Savior. If a person is unsure or doesn't believe he is also God that is a separate, lesser issue as is misunderstanding what and who the Holy Spirit is and is not.

ewq,

The person of Jesus Christ is central to what it means to have faith "in his name." The "antichrists" in 1 John were those who were twisting who Jesus was. John makes it very clear that if one does not accept the truth of the Jesus they walked with and personally knew, not only do they not have Christ, but they are antichrists and are committing sins that lead to spiritual death. The whole gospel of John is written so that people might know the truth of who Jesus is and base their faith on that truth. The person of Jesus is central to Christianity and it makes all the difference in the world what someone believes about who he was. It is not a secondary issue. Far from it.

I suggest you read Luke 8:11-15 (NIV)

StanJ, You may need to elaborate here a bit. I dont understand what this has to do with the topic of baptism as it relates to discipleship/conversion.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, biblically, and looking at early church history, there was no such thing as a Christian who had not been baptized. Obviously, because of all of the confusion about this subject today, it is a different situation. Personally, I believe that a person who is ignorant of the biblical teaching on baptism can still know God's grace and salvation. However, I think we have an obligation to teach what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that all who believe ought to be baptized and that this is the point in which a person is cleansed by God, brought into the church, clothed with Christ and receives the Holy Spirit.

I agree with teaching about baptism, but not your version. A person is cleansed by God (Acts 15:9) when he/she bows in repentance and faith (2 Tim 2:25) to Christ alone for salvation (Acts 4:12). He/she then is ushered into the body of Christ (Col 1:21-23) and receives the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14). It is then that believers are justified by faith (declared righteous forensically before God) - Rom 10:9-10 - and the wrath of God against them has been appeased through propitiation (1 Jn 2:2 ESV). We are 'washed', i.e. cleansed, 'by regeneration' according to Titus 3:5.

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

Too many of these 'proof-texts' for God having a physical body are reports of visions.

Why is it everyone seems to assume a vision means "what you see is not true"? And very little if any are part of visions anyways.

Jesus is described in a physical way as well as his Father yet only Jesus is allowed to have a body?

It cannot be assumed that these equate to physical reality - otherwise we would also have to say that Jesus is literally a Lamb with seven eyes and seven horns...

That's a terrible comparison since that is obviously figurative language but when there is no figurative language and Jesus comes and takes a book from the hand of his Father, guess what? The Father did have a real hand!

There are other possible explanations for the 'physical' apparitions in the Old Testament as well.

God the Father has a physical form that is as natural for him as the form is for the Son.