That’s very funny. Ok, your position is different from the Norman Geisler’s, namely, resurrection of the Flesh is ESSENTIAL for salvation. Following that logic, in the next life we will have Jesus Christ and all that he saved with bodies, but darn it, God that Father will not have a Body! Huh? Why then is resurrection of the flesh ESSENTIAL to the faith?
It is fine that you believe in a two spirit Godhead where God the Father and the Holy Ghost as spirits but don’t decry us when your theology makes no sense at all. In fact the logical conclusion is contrary to one of the essentials of Jesus Christ’s message, namely resurrection of the flesh. But, in your mistaken theology, if God is really only a spirit then when we are resurrected in the Flesh, we become not closer to God but we become further away?!?!?! Your position actually contravene’s Christ statement that He is “the Way” and no man comes to the further but Him, because in your view we become permeantly differently than the Father.
P.S. I would believe your point if you can show me where God is referenced as “only” spirit. I see references to God as light. Should I take that as God is “only” light?
I appreciate the fact that you posted the Blake Ostler works. He raised many of the same concerns that I have, but the basic questions remain unanswered. I pointed out some of the twisted logic and changed meanings of words he used to try to make his case.
You did not address my concerns, but then pasted the Geisler work to somehow show that God the Father has a body. I don’t see the connection, and I wonder why you would do that other than to distract from original question.
But I will answer your questions, and I hope you will go back and try to answer mine.
in the next life we will have Jesus Christ and all that he saved with bodies, but darn it, God that Father will not have a Body!
Yes, in the next life we will have resurrected bodies. As a child, I actually hoped that in the next life I would be a spirit, just like an angel not bound by time and space. But that is not the way God made his plan.
The Bible tells us that when Jesus returns to earth, he will physically raise all those who have died, giving them back the bodies they lost at death. These will be the same bodies people had, but our resurrected bodies will not die and will be transformed into a glorified state, freed from suffering and pain, and enabled to do many of the amazing things Jesus could do with his glorified body. 1 Cor. 15:35–44
I can see how from your background – where you believe that you will become a god – that this reality could be a disappointment. But that is God’s plan, and, after all, he created me and I thank Him for that. I plan to spend the rest of eternity in the presence of God, worshiping Him along with the angels.
Why then is resurrection of the flesh ESSENTIAL to the faith?
Because it is consistent with the revealed word of God in Scripture: "if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:13–18).
But, in your mistaken theology, if God is really only a spirit then when we are resurrected in the Flesh, we become not closer to God but we become further away?!?!?!
We cannot see God in these bodies of ours. In the next life, in our resurrected bodies, we can see God. I happen to believe that hell is the absence of that vision of God – they will know what they are missing and it will burn for eternity. Being close to God, seeing Him and worshiping Him in His presence is being far closer than we are now. We don’t have to become God to worship Him.
I would believe your point if you can show me where God is referenced as “only” spirit. I see references to God as light. Should I take that as God is “only” light?
We need to apply reason when it comes to reading Scripture, and look for consistency and context. When Christ said “I am the vine”, “I am the door,” we shouldn’t think in literal terms. It just doesn’t make sense that the example Christ was giving should be taken literally – He is not a vine or a door, but we get thepoint. The same with the light. The same with Ps. 91:4—"He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge" I don’t believe God has feathers or wings, but I get the point, and this is consistent with other Scripture, for example, when in Exodus God told Moses he carried them on eagle’s wings.
I find that when God uses the “is” word, it means “is” and not something else. Like when God said “17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Mat 3:17 I know Christ is the Son of God. So when Jesus teaches us: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:24, this means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being. This is also consistent where Jesus tells us elsewhere, "a spirit has not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39).
So now I ask you, how is a changing God consistent with the unchanging God described in Mormon and Moroni?