The Instigator
Flame
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Strikeeagle84015
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

LDS' Doctrine on the Father and the Holy Spirit Are Christian Doctrines

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Flame
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,195 times Debate No: 12442
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (2)

 

Flame

Con

===========
INTRODUCTION
===========

My opponent made two main truth claims which are " God the Father who has a body of flesh.....the Holy Ghost which will at some point get a body of flesh and bone." As Con, I believe that such doctrines are outside of the Christian Faith. Never taught by the eye-witnesses of Jesus (the twelve apostles) the other writers of the New Testament, or the Church Fathers who faithfully held to the teachings of the apostles. As pro, the burden of proof falls on Strikeeagle84015 to give evidence from church history, the Bible (Old and New Testaments), and any other reliable source that would show forth evidence and reason that such doctrines are indeed part of the Christian Faith. Pro requested in a pm, "one condition you will accept the Book of Mormon if not as a primary source at least auxiliary evidence." It is accepted not as primary source for the Christian Faith, but as representing LSD's belief system. In round 1, I will provide some definitions. Pro may give his introduction and contentions as well. Round 2-4 will be for rebuttals/explanations. Round 5 the conclusion. If my opponent accepts my challenge, I give my thanks in advance and look forward to our debate. Thank you to our readers for taking their time to read this debate.

========
DEFINITIONS
========

Truth: 1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement. [1]

Literary Context: Of any verse is the paragraph of which it is a part, the section of which that paragraph is a part, and the book of which that section is a part. And, given the unity of Scripture, the ultimate context of any book is the entire Bible.

Historical Context: What were some of the social, political, and technological influences on the writer and on those to whom he was writing, what else was taking place in the world at this time, where does this passage fit in history, what is taking place?

Theological Context: What did this author know about God, what was the relationship of his readers to God, where does this passage fit in the unfolding of Scripture, etc?

Cultural Context: Self-explanatory

Geographic Context: Self-Explanatory
Comparison: Comparing Scripture with Scripture. [2]

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] Hendricks, D. William and G. Howard, "Living by the Book", pg. 228-242
Strikeeagle84015

Pro

I thank my opponent for providing such an interesting debate topic but before I begin I would like to say somethings.
First I am sorry but it has come to my knowledge that the Holy Ghost getting a body is not actual doctrine of the LDS Church however it is a commonly held belief and I will still be willing to debate just remember that the idea the Holy Ghost getting a body is not canonized doctrine of the church
Second, in this debate I will be using the KJV bible published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and although I doubt I will need to in certain places I may use the JST (Joseph Smith Translation) Bible, but I still doubt I will need to with that let us begin.

1. God the Father has a Body
Now before I begin I would like to say that the LDS Church does not believe that we have a body exactly like God's we believe that God has a perfect and edified body, similar if not the same to the type of body Christ had (and has) after his resurrection.
Acts 7: 55-56
55 But he, [Stephen] being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And he said, Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Now this verse not only proves the that the Godhead are three seperate beings, but it also causes the asking of the question. How can a being who does not posses a body have another being sit on his right hand. If God the Father has not a body then how could Christ have sat on his right hand? Therefore that supports the idea that God the Father has a body

Genesis 1:26-27
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Now this second selection of scripture also lends credence to the idea that God does have a body,
"Let us make man in our image."
If God has no body then how can he create man in his image? This furthers the fact that God the Father does have a body as we are created in the image of him.

Exodus 31:18
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
If God had no body than how could he have written with his finger upon the tablets of stone. Thus this further leads credence to the idea that God has a body

Exodus 33:11
11And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
Now this verse again leads credence to the idea that God has a body has how can you speak face to face as a man speaketh to his friend without a body? Thus God has a body.

Revelation 22:4
4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
Again, if God has not a body then how can he have a face

Now these several verses all attest to the idea and fact that God the Father has a body of flesh and that he occupies spaces, and takes up room, which means he has a body.

2: The Holy Ghost will receive a body.
As noted above this is not an official doctrine of the LDS church however it is a widely help belief.
Now rather than using scripture I will attempt to prove this point through reason.
Now it is a known fact that Satan does not posses a body and that he was cast out of heaven along with 1/3 of the hosts of heaven. Now those that did not follow Satan were then born here onto this earth receiving a body as their reward for staying faithful to the Armies of God during the War in Heaven. Now eventually we will all be resurrected and given a perfected body. Following that would it not make sense that at some point the Holy Ghost will receive a body as he is the most righteous and faithful and powerful spirit second only to Christ himself.

Again I thank my opponent for this wonderful debate
Debate Round No. 1
Flame

Con

==============
INTRODUCTION
==============

Again, I thank Strikeeagle84015 for accepting this challenge and it is my great desire that in this debate there is an understanding of the orthodox doctrines of the Christian Faith. First, I would like for our readers to take notice of pro's admission of doctrines that are not canonized. That is to say, it is not sanctioned or approved authoritatively [1] in the LDS Church, but that it is a common belief. In other words, he is saying that it is simply an opinion or conviction. [2] Second, he is neglecting the principles of interpreting the Bible by ignoring passages where it obviously should be interpreted as figuratively and not literally. Third, although reason (I shall call it for understanding sake: sense knowledge) has its proper usage, it alone can not give us the answers regarding the nature of God since it has its limits. Thus the need for revelation (2 Tim 3:16).

================
Authoritative or Opinion
================

Most of the major doctrines of the LDS Church are being taught when there is no evidence in the Book of Mormon. Among them, the nature of God. That is to say, in my opponent's own words, "God has a perfect and edified body, similar if not the same to the type of body Christ had (and has) after his resurrection." By pro's own admission, this is not authoritative, but simply an opinion. I would like for our readers to carefully read what the Book of Mormon has to say regarding the nature of God:

A. The Book of Mormon:
1. Authoritative: The Lamanites (Native Americans) refers to God as "the Great Spirit"
Alma 22:9 And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem?
Alma 22:10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? [3]

2. Opinion: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's..." (D&C 130:22). [4]
3. Opinion: "The Holy Ghost is a male personage, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, (Le Grand Richards, Salt Lake City, 1956, p. 118; Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 179). [5]

Now this what the Bible has to say concerning the nature of God:
B. The Bible
1. Authoritative: God is a Spirit Being
a. The Teachings of Christ: Luke 24:39; John 4:24
Jesus made a theological profound statement when He said, "God is spirit." It is important for our readers to understand that in this statement it deals directly with the nature of God because the "a," the indefinite article which is never found in the Greek, is deleted. Thus, in His very essence God is spirit. [6] We can also see in Jesus' other statement, "a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." From this it is apparent that spirit stands in contrast to that which is material or corporeal. Once again, God, being spirit, is not composed of material parts.

=================
Figuring Out The Figurative
=================

I have mentioned how my opponent has neglected the principles of interpreting the Bible by ignoring passages where it obviously should be interpreted as figuratively and not literally. Understanding hermeneutics is important in order to apply its principles if we are to arrive at a proper interpretation of the text. Hermeneutics is defines as, "Hermeneutics (English pronunciation: /hɜrməˈnjuːtɨks/) is the study of interpretation theory, and can be either the art of interpretation, or the theory and practice of interpretation. Traditional hermeneutics — which includes Biblical hermeneutics — refers to the study of the interpretation of written texts, especially texts in the areas of literature, religion and law." [7] Howard Hendricks, professor of hermeneutics at Dallas Theological Seminary, gave ten principles when to interpret a passage of the Bible in a figurative sense:

1. Use the figurative sense unless there is some good reason not to.
2. Use the figurative sense when the passage tells you to do so.
3. Use the figurative sense if a literal meaning is impossible or absurd.
4. Use the figurative sense if a literal meaning would involve something immoral.
5. Use the figurative sense if the expression is an obvious figure of speech.
6. Use the figurative sense if a literal interpretation goes contrary to the context and scope of the passage.
7. Use the figurative sense if a literal interpretation goes contrary to the general character and style of the book.
8. Use the figurative sense if a literal interpretation goes contrary to the plan and purpose of the author.
9. Use the figurative sense if a literal interpretation involves a contradiction of other Scripture.
10. Use the figurative sense if a literal interpretation would involve a contradiction of doctrine. [8]

==================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
==================

Q: If God has no body then how can he create man in his image? This furthers the fact that God the Father does have a body as we are created in the image of him.

A: No, it does not. As I have provided evidence from both the Book of Mormon and the Bible, God is a spirit being. Since God is a spirit, it must refer something other than the physical. The Bible declares that this image consists of righteousness, knowledge, holiness (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24). In other words, the image of God in man therefore consists in personal and moral likeness rather than the physical resemblance.

Q: If God had no body than how could he have written with his finger upon the tablets of stone. Thus this further leads credence to the idea that God has a body.

A: Again, I already have provided evidence that God is a spirit being. Than you are to apply the figurative sense of interpretation when it involves contradiction of doctrine.

Q: Now this verse not only proves the that the Godhead are three separate beings, but it also causes the asking of the question. How can a being who does not posses a body have another being sit on his right hand. If God the Father has not a body then how could Christ have sat on his right hand? Therefore that supports the idea that God the Father has a body.

A: The debate does not concern the doctrine of the Trinity, but if God consist of the physical or a spirit being. Again, this is where you need to apply the figurative sense. It still involves contradiction of doctrine

Q: If God had no body than how could he have written with his finger upon the tablets of stone. Thus this further leads credence to the idea that God has a body.

A: Figurative sense principle.

Q: Now this verse again leads credence to the idea that God has a body has how can you speak face to face as a man speckle to his friend without a body? Thus God has a body.

A: No it still does not for the previous reasons and evidence I have provided. The Bible clearly declares that God can not be seeing with material eyes (John 1:18). Moses was told that no man could look upon God's face and live (Ex. 33:20). Thus, this is where you are to apply the figurative sense because it is an obvious figure of speech and still involves contradiction of doctrine.

Q: Now these several verses all attest to the idea and fact that God the Father has a body of flesh and that he occupies spaces, and takes up room, which means he has a body.

A: You have not demonstrated evidence at all to show otherwise. What you have done is to completely neglect the usage of hermeneutic principles for proper interpretation. As well as answered every single one of your questions with the Bible (2 Tim 3:16).
=====================
Sense and Revelation Knowledge
=====================
For the sake of my opponent and our readers I define sense knowledge (reason) as "knowledge that comes from the five senses." Revelation knowledge that comes from God through the Bible. Pro made this statement, "Now rather than using scripture I will attempt to prove this point through reason." According to the Bible
Strikeeagle84015

Pro

Strikeeagle84015 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Flame

Con

Unfortunately my opponent forfeited this round. I extend my arguments and cross-examination of his evidence to the next round. Vote con
Strikeeagle84015

Pro

I am going to have to concede this debate I apologize to my opposition, I am currently in 4 other debates right now and I am leaving camping for a week tomorrow I apologize again and urge voting of Con and would be happy to reaccept this debate at a time I am more able to debate it
Debate Round No. 3
Flame

Con

Pro concedes this debate due to activities. My arguments and rebuttals stands. I hope week at camp will be enjoyable strykee.
Strikeeagle84015

Pro

Strikeeagle84015 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Flame

Con

Pro concedes this debate due to activities. My arguments and rebuttals stands.
Strikeeagle84015

Pro

Strikeeagle84015 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Flame 7 years ago
Flame
"There is not a single book in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus,"

Not true. The historical standard used to examine a eyewitness, that is if they are telling the truth, etc, is indeed meet by the gospel writers.
Posted by Flame 7 years ago
Flame
*Thus, the debate was NOT about His existence.*
Posted by Flame 7 years ago
Flame
You: 1)This comment section often has comments that are germane to the debate
Me: Yes, but you mentioned the existence of God when it was irrelevant to the debate. The debate is between two debaters under the banner of "Christianity." Thus, the debate was about His existence.

2)This comment section often discusses statements made in the debate.
Me: Yes, and also a need to clarify and correct any misunderstandings of the positions. I had to so that because you have indeed committed the Straw-man fallacy with my argument position as I have pointed out how you have done so.

3)My comments are NOT about whether you proved nor about whether you did not prove that the LDS' doctrine is a Christian doctrine.
Me: Sure.

4)Instead, my comments are about statements you made in the debate.
Me: Sure, and I have answered that in number 2.

5)I have quoted those statements several times.
Me: Yes and no. Some were mine and some were my opponents. Plus I also explained that it was indeed relevant to the debate in one of my previous posts.

6)If you want to answer my question about why you say those statements are true, answer.
Me: I already have.

7)If you want to answer (a) (b) (c) in the questionnaire http://www.debate.org...... "What is your standard of truth?", written before you had this debate, then answer those.

Me: I gave you a reasonable answer that I believe can't be answered in your "survey" choices. I do not believe that your "survey choices" would accurately describe my answers. I think it is wise and best to allow people to do just that rather than dictating their answers by telling them that thsoe are the ONLY choices they have.

8)If you do not want to answer (a) (b) (c) in the questionnaire http://www.debate.org...... and/or if you do not want to answer my question about why you say the statements of yours I quoted, why you say those are true, then say you do not want to answer, and will leave.

Me: Same as number 7.
Posted by Flame 7 years ago
Flame
***So, let's say we "get it right" regarding what parts of the Bible were intended to be literal. Well, that's "getting it right" about the statement's intent, but after we get that right, does the statement "get it right" about its subject as it actually is?***

I think that there needs to be an understanding about what is "Biblical literalism." "Biblical literalism (also called Biblicism or Biblical fundamentalism) is the interpretation or translation of the explicit and primary sense of words in the Bible." [1] Geisler explains it this way, "....the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed." [1] This is exactly why I listed, in round 1, the 6-fold context because that is how you can determine the author's intent along with coming with the author's term, etc. Reading intelligently. This is not to suggest that a "Biblical literalist" will deny parables, metaphors, allegories, hyperbole in the Bible. For example, Jesus said that He was the gate. It is obvious that He did not meant that He was physical gate, but that He was teaching the people that He is the way to God. He was using a metaphor to teach truth.
Posted by Flame 7 years ago
Flame
***We can get into a quote ping-pong game if you want. And, if we were to have a quote ping-pong game***

1. It's quite legit when we are appealing to the views of an expert in a specific field, if it is relevant to the points of an argument that we are establishing. It only becomes "ping-pong,' when it is not relevant and if the expert just "say so' and does not present his argument/reasons to his position with evidence. This is not the case with Bruce.

***There is plenty of evidence that the church was very active in which depictions of Jesus it chose to keep (Mark, Matthew, Luke, for example) and what depictions of Jesus it excluded and outright proclaiming them "uninspired" (The Gnostic Gospels)..***

1. The eye-witnesses were indeed active during the oral-tradition and the writing of the Gospels.

Luke the physician writes, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
(Luke 1:1-4)

1. ***Which depictions of Jesus it chose to keep (Mark, Matthew, Luke, for example)***

a. The four Gospels are biographies of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. They are biographies not in the modern sense as we understand it. What you are doing is trying to see the ancient world through the modern eyes. Even Dr. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic, wrote "Many recent scholars have come to recognize that the New Testament Gospels are a kind of ancient biography." [1] In other words, the four Gospels are ".... a kind of sub-genre, that is, one type of ancient religious biography." [1] It's quite common and popular during that time period in the Roman-Greek world
Posted by INTJ 7 years ago
INTJ
>>>That is a straw-man fallacy because you are getting my argument wrong and twisting it by doing the following: <<<
>>>*Approximating truthfulness by whether it agrees or disagrees in principle, with one of those. namely the Bible, the Book of Mormon and The Doctrine and Covenants.*<<<

That is no such thing. I wrote "What is your Standard of Truth?" on 6/18/2010. This debate began on 6/30/2010. If you go to the link http://www.debate.org... , it says exactly there, in the second section—the section on approximating truth "the truth/falsity of the statement can be approximated by… (a).., (b).., and/or (c) …whether it agrees or disagrees, in principle, with the [fill in a book]"

Almost two weeks before you had this debate I made those multiple choice questions. For people to answer in a way similar to this, "For Question One I pick, this letter, as representative of my standard of truth. For Question Two I pick this letter's answer is representative of how I approximate truth. When I can't do either what I selected in Question One nor what I selected in Question Two, I think this letter's answer in Question Three is best representative of how I evaluate the statement."

I was explaining how to fill out the multiple choice question if it agreed, closely, with the answer you would give.
Posted by INTJ 7 years ago
INTJ
Maybe you speak more than one language. And that is good. But, it is frustrating for me, because it is harder to communicate these eight things…
1)This comment section often has comments that are germane to the debate
2)This comment section often discusses statements made in the debate
3)My comments are NOT about whether you proved nor about whether you did not prove that the LDS' doctrine is a Christian doctrine.
4)Instead, my comments are about statements you made in the debate.
5)I have quoted those statements several times.
6)If you want to answer my question about why you say those statements are true, answer.
7)If you want to answer (a) (b) (c) in the questionnaire http://www.debate.org... "What is your standard of truth?", written before you had this debate, then answer those.
8)If you do not want to answer (a) (b) (c) in the questionnaire http://www.debate.org... and/or if you do not want to answer my question about why you say the statements of yours I quoted, why you say those are true, then say you do not want to answer, and will leave.
Posted by INTJ 7 years ago
INTJ
>>>"The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning," (F.F. Bruce, (1910-1990), Professor at University of Manchester, in his book titled "New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" page 10).<<<
"There is not a single book in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus," (Reginald Horace Fuller, (1915-2007), Anglican Priest, Professor at Virginia Theological Seminary, in his book titled "A Critical Introduction to New Testament," page 197).

We can get into a quote ping-pong game if you want. And, if we were to have a quote ping-pong game there is plenty of evidence that the church was very active in which depictions of Jesus it chose to keep (Mark, Matthew, Luke, for example) and what depictions of Jesus it excluded and outright proclaiming them "uninspired" (The Gnostic Gospels) in which people were excommunicated and possibly poisoned, in the case of Arius, and outright murdered in the case of Michael Servetus—both of whom because they preached that Jesus was not God. Those actions are inconsistent with the behaviors of people who have the truth.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 7 years ago
popculturepooka
FlameStrikeeagle84015Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Flame 7 years ago
Flame
FlameStrikeeagle84015Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40