LDS restoration

[SeekerOfTruth7]

1. Jesus is God.
2. The resurrected Jesus has a body. (Philippians 3:21 He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself .)

(So far, we have one God with a body.)

1. The Father is God.
2. Christ is the exact image of the Father (Hebrews 1:3 KJV Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person… ) Therefore, the Father also has a body.

(Now, we have two Gods, each with a distinct body.)

Therefore, God has a body and Aquinas is refuted.

Worse “refutation” I have ever read. Aquinas would be laughing hysterically.

The resurrected Jesus has a body.

The resurrected Jesus is Incarnate, John 1:14. Incarnation means to assume human nature, assuming human nature means to not have said nature before. Therefore, Jesus didn’t have a body in the eternal past. Now, you assert that the Father has a body, implying that the Father was incarnate, but there is no biblical evidence whatsoever, except for two verse you twist and misinterpret completely, showing the further fallacy of Mormon exegesis and your personal exegesis. Jesus is the reflection of God’s glory in being the Son of God, not in being a man, for God is a Spirit as John 4 says, which your view of John 4 was thoroughly refuted earlier. The Divine Nature that is God, for the human nature of Jesus is not the Divine nature, is not a body. But the Person of the Son assumed a body, not the divine nature. The Divine nature cannot be a body for it is the most noble of natures as Aquinas says:

because God is the most noble of beings. Now it is impossible for a body to be the most noble of beings; for a body must be either animate or inanimate; and an animate body is manifestly nobler than any inanimate body.

Therefore, God is not a body.
The greatest mistake you made with trying to refute Aquinas, was that you didn’t attempt to refute what he said before! You skipped it all and focused on one line. Read the rest of what he said, and then read what he says on the incarnation. Disproves everything you just said.

It is generally a bad idea to take one verse out of context, a context contrasting Jesus to angels, showing how He was begotten and the angels are not, disproving this faulty notion Mormons say that we are the brothers of Jesus.
Research good exegesis before trying to use the bible as a source. And to disprove one line of Aquinas, make sure you know what he said before and disprove the three other reasons for why the Divine nature cannot be a body.

God Bless and open your heart.

 

[Stephen168]

Jaki is making the point that when the verb “create” is used, the meaning during the first Century was understood to be creation out of previously existing material.

The Catholic Priest is talking about the history of a word, not the history of Christian belief. How the word changed to match long held Christian and Jewish belief.

“The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform.”

This was explained to you last time you posted the quote.

Anti-Catholics attempt to refute Christian/Catholic/Orthodox belief in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist by saying the word transubstantiation was invented at the Council of Trent, as if a word describing a fact has the same timing as the fact. You want us to believe that there was no gravity until the word gravity was invented to describe it.

 

[Stephen168]

I could never hope to comment at the elevated levels of Tom’s comments.

As I asked you before, show us where Christians have believed that God the Father created out of material he did not create.

Or show us where Christians have believed that God the Father was once a man; a created being.

These are claims of Joseph Smith and Mormon Church which you have avoided even an attempt at defending. I can only assume that Joseph Smith just made them up ex nihilo.

 

[Stephen168]

PS - Origen stated regarding the Gospel of John:

Origen:

If, therefore, we hear these words plainly, and do not take more pains about them , we are bound to say God is a body. (Robert E. Heine, trans., “Origen Commentary on the Gospel of John Books 13-32 ,” in The Fathers of the Church (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 89:93-100

Books 13-32 are fragments of Origen’s commentaries. Considering the cherry picked text you copied and pasted is the opposite of Origen’s belief, I would assume that the statement was Origen presenting a false conclusion he then later refuted.

Cherry picking an Early Church Father making a statement he is about to refute is common among Mormon apologists.

 

[rIz0]

It would be helpful I think to actually do a bit of research regarding what Origen actually believed. The father being incorporeal is demanded by what he wrote. Here’s some cliff notes on the subject… I know you Mormons detest actually doing the heavy lifting respect to reading the writing of the early fathers. But this would be a good place to start.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/origen/

 

[hope]

Latter Day Saints have a very loose definition. According to Merriam-Webster," it is an act of refusing to continue to follow"(falling away). It is an abandonment of the faith. The loose definition is the result of not being able to substantiate an apostasy under the normal definition so the definition has to be manipulated to fit the narrative.