The Standard Works and the Trinity

[Cow Poke]

And there is no verse from the bible that says we WILL have blood. Again, you have nothing to go on except your opposition to Joseph Smith, who seems to determine your position on a lot of things.

Is there a verse that says we will have one or more baby toes?

[OtherCheek]

What does D&C have to do with resurrected bodies? That's explaining the false belief that God has a physical body, and the Spirit does not.

Like I say, you have nothing to go on of your own. The D&C sets even your point of reference in this.

[OtherCheek]

You keep posting these as if they are refuting what I have said. They do not. The life/soul is in the blood of the animal just as it was in Adam when God breathed into the clay. In order to be a Nephim, blood must be present, and God made Adam into a Nephim, hence blood must be present.

The life is the spirit. It animates the body. The breath of life is not blood. The blood that runs through our veins is symbolic of Christ, for it is HE that gives everlasting life.

You are guilty of trying to "divide" the idiom "flesh and blood". Somehow you get the idea that since our flesh now needs blood to be alive, it will always need blood to be alive. That is your strongest argument.

I have shown that "flesh and blood" describes corruption. It is clear and plain as day. You seem to think that corruption will again be sewn in the resurrection.

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

The word correlation is quite obvious.

[Bill the Cat]

The life is the spirit. It animates the body.

As I said, the bible says what the life is. Life requires blood. Adam received blood when he became a living thing.

The breath of life is not blood.

Never said it was. The breath of life filled the clay with blood, organs, and thus life.

The blood that runs through our veins is symbolic of Christ, for it is HE that gives everlasting life.

And it was given to Adam when God breathed into the clay.

You are guilty of trying to "divide" the idiom "flesh and blood". Somehow you get the idea that since our flesh now needs blood to be alive, it will always need blood to be alive. That is your strongest argument.

No, that is your straw man. My strongest argument is that when God breathed into the clay, Adam became a "Nephesh", and His Word says that a Nephesh has blood.

I have shown that "flesh and blood" describes corruption.

No you haven't.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Did Jesus partake of corruption?

Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Jesus has never partaken of corruption. God has seen to that.

Act 13:37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

S, did Jesus have "flesh and blood"? If so, then you are claiming that He saw corruption, since flesh and blood is corruption.

It is clear and plain as day.

That your theology has been soundly debunked, yes.

You seem to think that corruption will again be sewn in the resurrection.

No I don't. Blood is not corruption. Jesus had blood, and saw no corruption, so blood can not be corruption.

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

The word correlation is quite obvious.

Yes, it is. The phrase "flesh and blood" is an idiom. it is not the actual components that make it bad, or else Jesus was corrupt too, since He had flesh and blood.

[Hamster]

I have a feeling this is going to be one of those things that just ends up "you're not reading it with your spiritual eyes."

[OtherCheek]

As I said, the bible says what the life is. Life requires blood. Adam received blood when he became a living thing.

No, he didn't. Your attempt to connect two completely unrelated scriptures did not work.

Never said it was. The breath of life filled the clay with blood, organs, and thus life.

I believe the breath of life is our spirit which God created.

And it was given to Adam when God breathed into the clay.

A metaphorical reference to Adam receiving his spirit.

No, that is your straw man. My strongest argument is that when God breathed into the clay, Adam became a "Nephesh", and His Word says that a Nephesh has blood.

Well of course mortals have blood and it keeps us alive, but blood is not the spirit.
I already showed you the hebrew word for "breath". It is this breath that gave Adam life. No where do you have any indication that there is blood in the resurrection.

No you haven't.

Clear as day. 1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

"flesh and blood" are to "corruption" as "Kingdom of God" is to "incorruption."

don't try to peal apart the idiom as you call it and mix it in with references to "flesh and bone" after the resurrection.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Supports the idea that the devil has the power of death and that is the "flesh and blood". Don't you believe that Jesus had the power to die while he was here on the earth? Do you think Jesus retains the power to die while he is now resurrected?

Did Jesus partake of corruption?

You bet he did. He drank the bitter cup, and he took upon himself our sins, and he took upon himself mortality--flesh and blood.

Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Jesus has never partaken of corruption. God has seen to that.

Jesus partook of the bitter cup, and he saw corruption every day of his life. He overcame it. This verse is about the hereafter and the resurrection, not the here and now.

Act 13:37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

Because we are RAISED in incorruption as the scripture says.

1 Cor 15:42, 50, 53
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit ncorruption.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Christ took on a corruptible body when he came here, that is WHY he had the ability to give his life. (No man had the power to take it from him)

Why do you think that blood was poured to the earth to be soaked up by the earth?

S, did Jesus have "flesh and blood"? If so, then you are claiming that He saw corruption, since flesh and blood is corruption.

Well, we know that Jesus saw corruption. He spilt his own blood over corruption. He drank the bitter cup, and shrank. He descended below all things. But he was raised in incorruption.

It's all quite plain.

[jo7241974]

Alma 11:38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

Once again this verse reeks of the author blurring the lines of distinction between the Father and the Son. Smith would have been ok if he just inserted " God " instead of " Father, " but he didnt.

The modalists would love it if the bible had verses phrased this way.

Actually, I see these words could be supportive of the Trinity theory.

BTW, you are still not keeping your comments within the context of the OP. The OP's purpose is NOT to try to interpret the Bible OR the Book of Mormon. We are looking for evidence in the words which would support the Trinity point of view. In addition to trying to interpret these verses, I find that you are also judging Joseph Smith; also something off topic.

God bless,

jo

[jo7241974]

[JAYMZ;3050627]So are you saying that Isaiahs prophecy is specifally about what Jesus will say about Himself in Ether ? Regardless of the fact that Jesus never calls Himself the Father in the NT ?

Nope.

Btw, if Jesus is indeed the Father, as well as the Son, then it is my own faulty interpretation. But if Jesus is not the Father, but only the Son then you might want to check yourself for a LDS bias against non-LDS interpretations.

Off topic.

God bless,

jo

[jo7241974]

No, he didn't. Your attempt to connect two completely unrelated scriptures did not work.

I believe the breath of life is our spirit which God created.

A metaphorical reference to Adam receiving his spirit.

Well of course mortals have blood and it keeps us alive, but blood is not the spirit.
I already showed you the hebrew word for "breath". It is this breath that gave Adam life. No where do you have any indication that there is blood in the resurrection.

Clear as day. 1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

"flesh and blood" are to "corruption" as "Kingdom of God" is to "incorruption."

don't try to peal apart the idiom as you call it and mix it in with references to "flesh and bone" after the resurrection.

Supports the idea that the devil has the power of death and that is the "flesh and blood". Don't you believe that Jesus had the power to die while he was here on the earth? Do you think Jesus retains the power to die while he is now resurrected?

You bet he did. He drank the bitter cup, and he took upon himself our sins, and he took upon himself mortality--flesh and blood.

Jesus partook of the bitter cup, and he saw corruption every day of his life. He overcame it. This verse is about the hereafter and the resurrection, not the here and now.

Because we are RAISED in incorruption as the scripture says.

1 Cor 15:42, 50, 53
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit ncorruption.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Christ took on a corruptible body when he came here, that is WHY he had the ability to give his life. (No man had the power to take it from him)

Why do you think that blood was poured to the earth to be soaked up by the earth?

Well, we know that Jesus saw corruption. He spilt his own blood over corruption. He drank the bitter cup, and shrank. He descended below all things. But he was raised in incorruption.

It's all quite plain.

Hi OC,

I'm sure Geoffrey is having a fit by now. However, I'm going to add a quick thought here. Blood is NOT the same as the "breath" of life; our spirit is the breath of life. What happens when a person dies? Their "spirit" leaves their body - even people who experience "near death" claim they can see their body. Also, when a person dies, they still have blood in them. In fact, it gets drained from their already lifeless body and is replaced with embalming fluid.

God bless,

jo

[Cow Poke]

Hi OC,

I'm sure Geoffrey is having a fit by now. However, I'm going to add a quick thought here. Blood is NOT the same as the "breath" of life; our spirit is the breath of life. What happens when a person dies? Their "spirit" leaves their body - even people who experience "near death" claim they can see their body. Also, when a person dies, they still have blood in them. In fact, it gets drained from their already lifeless body and is replaced with embalming fluid.

God bless,

jo

So...
Jaymz makes a comment about the Trinity and you remark "off topic", TWICE, then you continue to comment on blood and spirit, which supposedly is off topic.

[Bill the Cat]

No, he didn't. Your attempt to connect two completely unrelated scriptures did not work.

I'm sorry, but they are only unrelated in your convoluted mind. Both descrbe a Nephish (living thing)

I believe the breath of life is our spirit which God created.

As do I. However, it was that breath that changed the clay into flesh and blood. In order for Adam to have become a nephish, blood is required.

A metaphorical reference to Adam receiving his spirit.

No it isn't. It is a biological reference to the clay becoming flesh and blood.

Well of course mortals have blood and it keeps us alive, but blood is not the spirit.

No one said it was. But, blood is not limited to only mortals, as Adam received it when God breathed into Him and the clay was transformed.

I already showed you the hebrew word for "breath". It is this breath that gave Adam life.

And I said that meshed fine with my premise - that a nephish had blood. The breath of God caused the clay to be transformed into a nephish, and a nephish has blood.

No where do you have any indication that there is blood in the resurrection.

And you have zero proof that it isn't. You are misusing an idiom.

id·i·om   /ˈɪdiəm/ Show Spelled[id-ee-uhm]
–noun

an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket

So, would you assume that a dead person has kicked, or was there a bucket that caused their death? No. Idioms are not meaningful by themselves nor are they indicative of the parts. Therefore, the IDIOM flesh and blood is not literally flesh, nor is it blood.

Clear as day. 1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

The idiom "flesh and blood" meant the natural man. It did not literally mean "those with flesh and blood as their makeup".

"flesh and blood" are to "corruption" as "Kingdom of God" is to "incorruption."

No they are not. That's why the word "neither" is in there. He is saying that a mortal man can not enter heaven, nor can immorality. it says nothing about blood in the resurrection.

don't try to peal apart the idiom as you call it and mix it in with references to "flesh and bone" after the resurrection.

Sorry, but "flesh and bone" is another Hebrew idiom. Laban used it of Jacob (Gen 29:14) to say that Jacob was indeed Laban's family. So your comment earlier "body of flesh and bone:incorruption" is used by Laban to describe Jacob. Was Jacob "incorruption" when he worked Laban's fields?

Supports the idea that the devil has the power of death and that is the "flesh and blood".

Nonsense. It is God who has the power of death.

Don't you believe that Jesus had the power to die while he was here on the earth?

Yes, but that is not corruption.

Do you think Jesus retains the power to die while he is now resurrected?

Since He is glorified, no. However, there is no evidence that this inability to die means that blood is not present.

You bet he did.

The Bible says the exact opposite, and quite clearly.

He drank the bitter cup, and he took upon himself our sins, and he took upon himself mortality--flesh and blood.

Sorry, this does not mean that He was corrupt. He did not partake of corruption. Paul also explained the cause of corruption:

Galatians 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

Jesus did not suffer corruption. Period.

Jesus partook of the bitter cup, and he saw corruption every day of his life.

That's not what I meant by "saw". Jesus did not suffer from corruption. He had flesh and blood. Therefore flesh and blood is not the same as corruption.

He overcame it. This verse is about the hereafter and the resurrection, not the here and now.

No. It is about the fundamental reality that, although Jesus was human, He did not sin, nor did He suffer from corruption.

Because we are RAISED in incorruption as the scripture says.

Yes, because we sin and are subject to corruption. Jesus was not, despite Him being flesh and blood.

1 Cor 15:42, 50, 53
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit ncorruption.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Meaning that we must die to be resurrected. We must be changed to receive eternal life. It has nothing to do with the existence of blood (just like death has nothing to do with a bucket).

Christ took on a corruptible body when he came here, that is WHY he had the ability to give his life. (No man had the power to take it from him)

No He did not! He was incorruptible.

1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
1 peter 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Jesus' blood was not corruptible.

Why do you think that blood was poured to the earth to be soaked up by the earth?

What are you talking about?

Well, we know that Jesus saw corruption.

Yet He was not corruptable, despite having blood.

He spilt his own blood over corruption. He drank the bitter cup, and shrank. He descended below all things. But he was raised in incorruption.

Sorry, but no. You misapply this concept. His blood was not corrupt. His blood was pure, and not a sign of corruption. Just as Adam had blood that was innocent until the fall.

[eudyptes]

Rev 1:5 (KJV)
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

(emphasis mine)

If blood is corruption....how are we washed from our corruption [sin] by something that holds corruption?

[OtherCheek]

Rev 1:5 (KJV)
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

(emphasis mine)

If blood is corruption....how are we washed from our corruption [sin] by something that holds corruption?

Only His blood was not corrupt. No other person's blood could wash away one's sins, only his. It is symbolic.

[Sparko]

And there is no verse from the bible that says we WILL have blood. Again, you have nothing to go on except your opposition to Joseph Smith, who seems to determine your position on a lot of things.

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

"flesh and blood" is to "corruption" what "kingdom of God" is to "incorruption".

well obviously you don't think "flesh" is corruption, do you? Since you believe we will have flesh in our glorified bodies. So why do you think "blood" is corruption?

You seem to pick and choose parts of the idiom to accept as applying to the glorified body and which to reject.

Yet as I have quoted, God has said that blood is sacred because it contains life.

And Jesus said:
Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

So I guess you think we drink corruption when we take communion?

[Cow Poke]

well obviously you don't think "flesh" is corruption, do you? Since you believe we will have flesh in our glorified bodies. So why do you think "blood" is corruption?

You seem to pick and choose parts of the idiom to accept as applying to the glorified body and which to reject.

Yet as I have quoted, God has said that blood is sacred because it contains life.

And Jesus said:
Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

So I guess you think we drink corruption when we take communion?

Maybe that's why they use water