Neither male nor female in the resurrection for some?

[GoCeltics]

On 12/1/2025 at 5:25 PM, InCognitus said:

Unless, of course, being the offspring of God (making humans the same kind of being as God, as the Bible teaches) has nothing to do with God begetting us through physical functions as you suppose.

That presents a good case against the need for a heavenly mother.

[GoCeltics]

On 12/1/2025 at 11:46 AM, JAHS said:

It's not a bad thing but I just can't imagine how a resurrected couple of exalted beings with bodies of flesh and bone can create spirits instead of flesh and bone children the same way mortals create children with physical bodies. Somehow they have to take a pre-existing intelligence and change it into a spirit child that has a male or female gender.

Assuming pre-existing intelligence does not possess gender.

[MustardSeed]

On 12/1/2025 at 6:48 PM, The Nehor said:

I’m not convinced there are three separate degrees with the Celestial and the one revelatory statement about three degrees probably just refers to the three general kingdoms.

Will you say more on this? 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Will you say more on this? 

D&C 131 comes from a summary of the teachings of Joseph Smith written by William Clayton about a series of meetings. He put some things in quotes suggesting they were direct quotes and other things not in quotes suggesting they are summaries. The bit about their being three subdivisions in the Celestial Kingdom is not in quotes. Also their being three glories or degrees kind of suggests that Joseph was talking about the Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial divisions and not some further subdivision.

Also no one took up the idea that there were subdivisions in the Celestial kingdom from the text until much later.

This leaves me a little dubious of everything in this section. Particularly stuff that isn’t said anywhere else.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

That presents a good case against the need for a heavenly mother.

Why?  Why can’t a female be involved in a nonbiological creation process?  What about creation says “men only” to you?

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

That presents a good case against the need for a heavenly mother.

I have the exact same question as Calm.  Why?  

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Why?  Why can’t a female be involved in a nonbiological creation process?  What about creation says “men only” to you?

Well, if it happens kinda like Zecheriah Sitchin postulates, perhaps they are lab partners. 😆

[JAHS]

On 12/1/2025 at 3:48 PM, The Nehor said:

I’m not convinced there are three separate degrees with the Celestial and the one revelatory statement about three degrees probably just refers to the three general kingdoms.

D&C 131:
1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

It seems pretty clear that there are three levels in the Celestial kingdom, but I have often wondered myself if that is what is meant in that scripture. If there are three levels in the celestial kingdom, who would be the ones who would go to each of the other two levels and what would they do there(ministering angels perhaps?) The Gospel Topics doesn't say anything about the three levels in the Celestial Kingdom. William Clayton is the one who recorded this statement made by Joseph Smith in an informal setting and it is possible that he was just referring to the three main degrees of heaven. Joseph Smith never talked about it anywhere else.

[MustardSeed]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

D&C 131 comes from a summary of the teachings of Joseph Smith written by William Clayton about a series of meetings. He put some things in quotes suggesting they were direct quotes and other things not in quotes suggesting they are summaries. The bit about their being three subdivisions in the Celestial Kingdom is not in quotes. Also their being three glories or degrees kind of suggests that Joseph was talking about the Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial divisions and not some further subdivision.

Also no one took up the idea that there were subdivisions in the Celestial kingdom from the text until much later.

This leaves me a little dubious of everything in this section. Particularly stuff that isn’t said anywhere else.

Thank you kindly.  Wow. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

D&C 131:
1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

It seems pretty clear that there are three levels in the Celestial kingdom, but I have often wondered myself if that is what is meant in that scripture. If there are three levels in the celestial kingdom, who would be the ones who would go to each of the other two levels and what would they do there(ministering angels perhaps?) The Gospel Topics doesn't say anything about the three levels in the Celestial Kingdom. William Clayton is the one who recorded this statement made by Joseph Smith in an informal setting and it is possible that he was just referring to the three main degrees of heaven. Joseph Smith never talked about it anywhere else.

"Celestial Glory" not Celestial Kingdom though? We have standardized language now, but not so much back at church founding. Celestial as described by webster in 1831: https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Celestial "Heavenly; belonging or relating to heaven; dwelling in heaven;" 

 

So in Heaven there are three heavens or degrees. Seems like it could apply to three kingdoms rather than three subdivisions of the highest kingdom. Or maybe not. 

[JVW]

15 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Well, if it happens kinda like Zecheriah Sitchin postulates, perhaps they are lab partners. 😆

More like chefs making a primordial soup, delicious.

[GoCeltics]

On 12/3/2025 at 2:27 PM, InCognitus said:

I have the exact same question as Calm.  Why?  

@Calm

My statement about you (InCognitus) making a case for no need of a heavenly mother was based on what you said previously - “Unless, of course, being the offspring of God (making humans the same kind of being as God, as the Bible teaches) has nothing to do with God begetting us through physical functions as you suppose”.

If one believes she is required, then how is a heavenly mother involved in spirits being begotten and born? Does she need to have physical functions in the body as Joseph Fielding Smith appeared to conclude?

[teddyaware]

7 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

@Calm

My statement about you (InCognitus) making a case for no need of a heavenly mother was based on what you said previously - “Unless, of course, being the offspring of God (making humans the same kind of being as God, as the Bible teaches) has nothing to do with God begetting us through physical functions as you suppose”.

If one believes she is required, then how is a heavenly mother involved in spirits being begotten and born? Does she need to have physical functions in the body as Joseph Fielding Smith appeared to conclude?

The thing I find fascinating is how there seem to be so many members who are so uncomfortable with sex, especially the unsettling thought that there actually might be sex in heaven, that procreation, the most basic and fundamental biological function that determines whether someone is male or female, is tossed out the window and the resurrected sex organs are relegated to being nothing more than useless vestigial organs that will just sit there forever and serve no perfected function. Why not just be resurrected with anatomically incorrect bodies, like Barbie and Ken, rather than have to spend all eternity encumbered with goofy looking vestigial organs that serve no purpose? To me, this is another perfect example of how some who are able to see are still unable to see.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The thing I find fascinating is how there seem to be so many members who are so uncomfortable with sex, especially the unsettling thought that there actually might be sex in heaven, that procreation, the most basic and fundamental biological function that determines whether someone is male or female, is tossed out the window and the resurrected sex organs are relegated to being nothing more than useless vestigial organs that will just sit there forever and serve no perfected function. Why not just be resurrected with anatomically incorrect bodies, like Barbie and Ken, rather than have to spend all eternity encumbered with goofy looking vestigial organs that serve no purpose? To me, this is another perfect example of how some who are able to see are still unable to see.

I think it is less about everyone not being as sex positive as teddyaware (that feels weird to type) and more about why physical beings having sex would create spirit beings since that doesn’t make a ton of sense. Also why you would need a sex process to form spirit beings out of intelligences or whatever spirit beings are made of.

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

@Calm

My statement about you (InCognitus) making a case for no need of a heavenly mother was based on what you said previously - “Unless, of course, being the offspring of God (making humans the same kind of being as God, as the Bible teaches) has nothing to do with God begetting us through physical functions as you suppose”.

If one believes she is required, then how is a heavenly mother involved in spirits being begotten and born? Does she need to have physical functions in the body as Joseph Fielding Smith appeared to conclude?

You have said (when posting as theplains) that when Paul taught the Athenians that we are all the offspring of God in Acts 17:28-29, that his listeners would understand him as teaching that there is a heavenly mother.  And as I said in the quote you provide from me above, Paul was teaching that humans are the same kind of being as God, and not providing the mechanics of how that was done.  I don't find any reason to speculate beyond what is actually said there.

[The Nehor]

On 12/1/2025 at 4:25 PM, InCognitus said:

Unless, of course, being the offspring of God (making humans the same kind of being as God, as the Bible teaches) has nothing to do with God begetting us through physical functions as you suppose.

The Bible does not teach that.

[InCognitus]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

On 12/1/2025 at 3:25 PM, InCognitus said:

Unless, of course, being the offspring of God (making humans the same kind of being as God, as the Bible teaches) has nothing to do with God begetting us through physical functions as you suppose.

The Bible does not teach that.

But it does.  The Greek word génos that Paul used in Acts 17:28-29 to teach the Athenians that we are all the "offspring of God", conveys the meaning that we are the same "kind" of being, the same genus as God (as it is translated in Latin in Acts 17:28-29).

This is the way Thayer's Lexicon defines the word génos:

The word génos would be understood by Paul and his Greek audience in the same way the word is used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), where it is translated from the Hebrew word miyn which means species or kind, in verses like the following (referring to the Septuagint):

Gen 1:21 (LXX): “And God made great whales, and every living reptile, which the waters brought forth according to their kinds [génos], and every creature that flies with wings according to its kind [génos], and God saw that they were good.”

Gen 1:24 (LXX):  “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature [Greek: psychen - soul] according to its kind [génos], quadrupeds and reptiles and wild beasts of the earth according to their kind [génos], and it was so.”

Gen 1:25 (LXX):  “And God made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind [génos], and cattle according to their kind [génos], and all the reptiles of the earth according to their kind [génos], and God saw that they were good.”

For all references above, see also the interlinear LXX here.  

Or where the word génos is used in the Septuagint for a family relationship, like in this verse (this reads a little differently in the Hebrew text so I don’t know the Hebrew word it was translated from here):

Gen 19:38 (LXX) “And the younger also bore a son, and called his name Amman, saying, The son of my family [génos].  This is the father of the Ammanites to this present day.”

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

But it does.  The Greek word génos that Paul used in Acts 17:28-29 to teach the Athenians that we are all the "offspring of God", conveys the meaning that we are the same "kind" of being, the same genus as God (as it is translated in Latin in Acts 17:28-29).

This is the way Thayer's Lexicon defines the word génos:

The word génos would be understood by Paul and his Greek audience in the same way the word is used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), where it is translated from the Hebrew word miyn which means species or kind, in verses like the following (referring to the Septuagint):

Gen 1:21 (LXX): “And God made great whales, and every living reptile, which the waters brought forth according to their kinds [génos], and every creature that flies with wings according to its kind [génos], and God saw that they were good.”

Gen 1:24 (LXX):  “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature [Greek: psychen - soul] according to its kind [génos], quadrupeds and reptiles and wild beasts of the earth according to their kind [génos], and it was so.”

Gen 1:25 (LXX):  “And God made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind [génos], and cattle according to their kind [génos], and all the reptiles of the earth according to their kind [génos], and God saw that they were good.”

For all references above, see also the interlinear LXX here.  

Or where the word génos is used in the Septuagint for a family relationship, like in this verse (this reads a little differently in the Hebrew text so I don’t know the Hebrew word it was translated from here):

Gen 19:38 (LXX) “And the younger also bore a son, and called his name Amman, saying, The son of my family [génos].  This is the father of the Ammanites to this present day.”

Just…..no.

The “we are his offspring” bit is Paul quoting Arastus of Soli, a poet. It is part of an invocation to Zeus at the beginning of a poem about astronomy:

“From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood. He tells what time the soil is best for the labour of the ox and for the mattock, and what time the seasons are favourable both for the planting of trees and for casting all manner of seeds. For himself it was who set the signs in heaven, and marked out the constellations, and for the year devised what stars chiefly should give to men right signs of the seasons, to the end that all things might grow unfailingly. Wherefore him do men ever worship first and last. Hail, O Father, mighty marvel, mighty blessing unto men. Hail to thee and to the Elder Race! Hail, ye Muses, right kindly, every one! But for me, too, in answer to my prayer direct all my lay, even as is meet, to tell the stars.”

To suggest that Paul is declaring that humanity is the literal biological offspring of God based on this quotation would mean that Zeus was believed to be the literal biological father of all of humanity in Greek mythology which he is not.

Paul is just using this poem as part of a philosophical argument. Paul is not quoting Greco-Roman mythology to establish the kind of divine parentage the LDS Church teaches. That is just silly. It is reading into the text something the author and/or Paul never intended.

Edited December 5, 2025 by The Nehor

[InCognitus]

58 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Just…..no.

The “we are his offspring” bit is Paul quoting Arastus of Soli, a poet. It is part of an invocation to Zeus at the beginning of a poem about astronomy:

“From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood. He tells what time the soil is best for the labour of the ox and for the mattock, and what time the seasons are favourable both for the planting of trees and for casting all manner of seeds. For himself it was who set the signs in heaven, and marked out the constellations, and for the year devised what stars chiefly should give to men right signs of the seasons, to the end that all things might grow unfailingly. Wherefore him do men ever worship first and last. Hail, O Father, mighty marvel, mighty blessing unto men. Hail to thee and to the Elder Race! Hail, ye Muses, right kindly, every one! But for me, too, in answer to my prayer direct all my lay, even as is meet, to tell the stars.”

To suggest that Paul is declaring that humanity is the literal biological offspring of God based on this quotation would mean that Zeus was believed to be the literal biological father of all of humanity in Greek mythology which he is not.

Paul is just using this poem as part of a philosophical argument. Paul is not quoting Greco-Roman mythology to establish the kind of divine parentage the LDS Church teaches. That is just silly. It is reading into the text something the author and/or Paul never intended.

Of course Paul is quoting the PHAENOMENA of Aratus, the Greek poet, and yes Paul is doing this to provide a philosophical argument.  And yes, the Athenians would have recognized the quote as referring to Zeus, but Paul is using it in this context as a logic argument to teach them about their "unknown God", which he uses to teach them about the true God of the Bible.

And I think it IS silly to suggest that Paul is only doing this for philosophical reasons and does not really believe what he is teaching them.  The meaning of the word génos and his use of the quote from Aratus is essential to his main point in the context of his argument.  Paul quotes Aratus and affirms the teaching with the implication being that it is silly to worship gods of gold or silver or stone (an image made by human design and skill) because we are the same kind of being as God (his génos) and WE are not gold or silver or stone.

If Paul didn't mean that we are the same kind of being as God then is he lying to his potential converts to win them over?  (And some of them did indeed convert - see Acts 17:34, how would Paul explain his duplicity to them?)  And if he didn't really mean we are the same kind of being as God then how would that help his argument?

If Paul simply believed that God created us and that we have no species relationship to God, then a God of any other kind who creates gold and silver and stone could also create us, and his whole argument fails.

But the strength of Paul’s argument is in the fact that we have a relationship to God as his offspring, we are the same kind of being as God, and thus to conceive of a god of any other kind is unreasonable. 

How can this be viewed any other way?  (Honest question).

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Of course Paul is quoting the PHAENOMENA of Aratus, the Greek poet, and yes Paul is doing this to provide a philosophical argument.  And yes, the Athenians would have recognized the quote as referring to Zeus, but Paul is using it in this context as a logic argument to teach them about their "unknown God", which he uses to teach them about the true God of the Bible.

And I think it IS silly to suggest that Paul is only doing this for philosophical reasons and does not really believe what he is teaching them.  The meaning of the word génos and his use of the quote from Aratus is essential to his main point in the context of his argument.  Paul quotes Aratus and affirms the teaching with the implication being that it is silly to worship gods of gold or silver or stone (an image made by human design and skill) because we are the same kind of being as God (his génos) and WE are not gold or silver or stone.

Yes, he slips in a standard idol polemic similar to how Jeremiah (and others) did. That is not the main thrust of what he is saying though. In the verses before he talks about how God has granted humanity all their power and reason. He is claiming that one God is the source of all life.

13 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

If Paul didn't mean that we are the same kind of being as God then is he lying to his potential converts to win them over?  (And some of them did indeed convert - see Acts 17:34, how would Paul explain his duplicity to them?)  And if he didn't really mean we are the same kind of being as God then how would that help his argument?

He was arguing that humans and the divine are more alike than idols and the divine. It is not about being biologically related.

13 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

If Paul simply believed that God created us and that we have no species relationship to God, then a God of any other kind who creates gold and silver and stone could also create us, and his whole argument fails.

If the argument was that God and humans are biologically related because Zeus and humans are biologically related it falls apart even faster when someone points out that Zeus and humans aren’t biologically related.

He is arguing that God created man in his own image. Not that God birthed humanity. I suspect Paul is probably about to transition into teaching that Jesus is the perfect representation of God in a way that surpasses all idols since he starts talking about Jesus and the resurrection.

13 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

But the strength of Paul’s argument is in the fact that we have a relationship to God as his offspring, we are the same kind of being as God, and thus to conceive of a god of any other kind is unreasonable. 

How can this be viewed any other way?  (Honest question).

Again, he is using a quotation about a Greek pagan god who is not biologically related to humanity. Why would he do that to try to show that God is somehow biologically related to humanity? He is talking to philosophers. They would shoot him down in seconds.

Paul is preaching the superiority of the God he is preaching by tying God to creating humanity. There is a lot of Greek philosophy tied up in how humanity is different from the animals and the natural world but he is pointing towards a greater God. I am not familiar enough with Greek philosophy to go beyond that. I know a bit but if I tried to explain it I would probably get a lot of it wrong.

 

The most powerful counterargument is that if humanity was being taught to be the biological children of God why did no one at the time pick up on or engage with that idea? Instead it is suddenly discovered to mean that over a millenium later by a faith that preaches that this is the case. If you can only find this idea in the text when you bring that idea to the text it is probably not in the actual text.

[Calm]

 

On 12/5/2025 at 8:12 AM, teddyaware said:

To me, this is another perfect example of how some who are able to see are still unable to see.

I don’t know why you are coupling sex with procreation here as if we can’t have one without the other.  It’s not even necessary any more in mortality.

It is definitely not comfort level with sex in my case.  It is comfort level with speculation presented as doctrine.  Since it’s not that logical (spirit does not appear to act consistently like physical elements and forces act, so assuming identical processes for creation is filling in way too many gaps without foundation) without revelation detailing it, I don’t see a reason to require it.  

I am fine with whatever happens in spirit creation, looking forward to further revelation on the matter and all things next life related.   

And I very much hope and believe that heaven includes an active sex life.  And climbing mountains.  And swimming lakes and watching stars and all those other many, many things I have enjoyed doing in this life.

Edited December 6, 2025 by Calm

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, he slips in a standard idol polemic similar to how Jeremiah (and others) did. That is not the main thrust of what he is saying though. In the verses before he talks about how God has granted humanity all their power and reason. He is claiming that one God is the source of all life.

Paul claiming that one God is the source of all life is just the beginning of his argument, but he builds on that and adds that we are related to him and therefore we shouldn't consider God to be stone or silver or gold or something made by the hands of men.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

If Paul didn't mean that we are the same kind of being as God then is he lying to his potential converts to win them over?  (And some of them did indeed convert - see Acts 17:34, how would Paul explain his duplicity to them?)  And if he didn't really mean we are the same kind of being as God then how would that help his argument?

He was arguing that humans and the divine are more alike than idols and the divine. It is not about being biologically related.

Humans and the divine being "more alike than idols and the divine" still cuts his argument short.  Paul argues that God has "made the world and all things therein" and that he has "made of one blood all nations of men", but included in that God also made stone and gold and silver (part of the "world and all things therein" ), which if men are diminished to being mere creations of God then the logic of his whole argument fails completely, since both men and elements from which idols are made from are no different, they are both creations.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Again, he is using a quotation about a Greek pagan god who is not biologically related to humanity. Why would he do that to try to show that God is somehow biologically related to humanity? He is talking to philosophers. They would shoot him down in seconds.

Why did Aratus write that the pagan god (Zeus) is biologically related to humanity if they all supposed that he is not biologically related to humanity?  Paul's Greek audience would certainly understand the word génos to mean the same kind of being.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Paul is preaching the superiority of the God he is preaching by tying God to creating humanity. There is a lot of Greek philosophy tied up in how humanity is different from the animals and the natural world but he is pointing towards a greater God. I am not familiar enough with Greek philosophy to go beyond that. I know a bit but if I tried to explain it I would probably get a lot of it wrong.

I am also not familiar enough with Greek philosophy to go beyond that, so I'm with you here.  But I'm still left with the fact that Aratus wrote that we are all the génos of God (Zeus in his case, but for Paul it was the true God of the Bible).

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The most powerful counterargument is that if humanity was being taught to be the biological children of God why did no one at the time pick up on or engage with that idea? Instead it is suddenly discovered to mean that over a millenium later by a faith that preaches that this is the case. If you can only find this idea in the text when you bring that idea to the text it is probably not in the actual text.

I think "biological children" is the wrong terminology because it infers physical biology.  I think Paul was referring to our eternal spirits, which are the same kind of being as God, and there is some evidence in Greek philosophy and early Christian teaching of the eternal nature of spirits. James Hubler identifies Plutarch as teaching the eternal nature of the soul on pages 59-60 of his 1995 article, Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and
Christian Philosophy Through Aquinas.  So it was recognized by some.

Terryl Givens also covers that topic extensively in his book When Souls Had Wings - Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought. 

Consequently, I think this idea exists far beyond the text of Acts 17:28-29.

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Paul claiming that one God is the source of all life is just the beginning of his argument, but he builds on that and adds that we are related to him and therefore we shouldn't consider God to be stone or silver or gold or something made by the hands of men.

Which is a blast against image worship and not other gods. Idols were not the Greek gods any more than the ark of the Covenant was the Israelite God.

20 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Humans and the divine being "more alike than idols and the divine" still cuts his argument short.  Paul argues that God has "made the world and all things therein" and that he has "made of one blood all nations of men", but included in that God also made stone and gold and silver (part of the "world and all things therein" ), which if men are diminished to being mere creations of God then the logic of his whole argument fails completely, since both men and elements from which idols are made from are no different, they are both creations.

Humans and elements were not considered the same thing or considered to come from the same source in Greek philosophy or religion.

20 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Why did Aratus write that the pagan god (Zeus) is biologically related to humanity if they all supposed that he is not biologically related to humanity?  Paul's Greek audience would certainly understand the word génos to mean the same kind of being.

Except Aratus didn’t mean that nor did Paul’s audience seem to believe that is what Aratus or Paul meant. 

20 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I am also not familiar enough with Greek philosophy to go beyond that, so I'm with you here.  But I'm still left with the fact that Aratus wrote that we are all the génos of God (Zeus in his case, but for Paul it was the true God of the Bible).

You’re relying way too much on a word choice that you think has to be literal.

”He is a son to me.”

Someone in the far future could read a line like that and assume that means I must be a literal son.

20 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I think "biological children" is the wrong terminology because it infers physical biology.  I think Paul was referring to our eternal spirits, which are the same kind of being as God, and there is some evidence in Greek philosophy and early Christian teaching of the eternal nature of spirits. James Hubler identifies Plutarch as teaching the eternal nature of the soul on pages 59-60 of his 1995 article, Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and
Christian Philosophy Through Aquinas.  So it was recognized by some.

Plutarch would probably have been less than ten years old at this point. He was more of the “world-soul” type where human souls would be emanations of God.

20 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Terryl Givens also covers that topic extensively in his book When Souls Had Wings - Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought. 

Consequently, I think this idea exists far beyond the text of Acts 17:28-29.

Premortal souls existing is a thing. Doesn’t really support a parent/child relationship between God and humanity. At least not one compatible with LDS theology.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Paul claiming that one God is the source of all life is just the beginning of his argument, but he builds on that and adds that we are related to him and therefore we shouldn't consider God to be stone or silver or gold or something made by the hands of men.

Which is a blast against image worship and not other gods. Idols were not the Greek gods any more than the ark of the Covenant was the Israelite God.

I agree.  Paul affirmed the existence of other gods elsewhere while denouncing the worship of idols (which is also done through the Old Testament as well).

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Humans and the divine being "more alike than idols and the divine" still cuts his argument short.  Paul argues that God has "made the world and all things therein" and that he has "made of one blood all nations of men", but included in that God also made stone and gold and silver (part of the "world and all things therein" ), which if men are diminished to being mere creations of God then the logic of his whole argument fails completely, since both men and elements from which idols are made from are no different, they are both creations.

Humans and elements were not considered the same thing or considered to come from the same source in Greek philosophy or religion.

But if humans and elements are mere creations, then they are both creations and therefore have no species or kind of being relationship to God, and that would not help Paul's argument.  And if humans have no relationship to God, then why couldn't God be gold or silver or stone?

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Why did Aratus write that the pagan god (Zeus) is biologically related to humanity if they all supposed that he is not biologically related to humanity?  Paul's Greek audience would certainly understand the word génos to mean the same kind of being.

Except Aratus didn’t mean that nor did Paul’s audience seem to believe that is what Aratus or Paul meant. 

What do you think the Greek word génos means that would preclude Aratus from conveying the idea that we are the same kind of being as God?  I don't know how to take that word in any other way than having a kind of being or species relationship, and that's the word that Aratus used and the word that Paul used when teaching the Athenians that we are all the génos of God.

I think the kind of being meaning is exactly how Paul's Greek audience would understand him.  

Even the near contemporary Greek Stoic philosopher, Epictetus (c 50 - 135 AD), understood humankind's relationship to Zeus that way.   In Epictetus Discourses, 1:13, he wrote:

"Slave yourself, will you not bear with your own brother, who has Zeus for his progenitor, and is like a son from the same seeds and of the same descent from above? But if you have been put in any such higher place, will you immediately make yourself a tyrant? Will you not remember who you are, and whom you rule? that they are kinsmen, that they are brethren by nature, that they are the offspring of Zeus? "

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I am also not familiar enough with Greek philosophy to go beyond that, so I'm with you here.  But I'm still left with the fact that Aratus wrote that we are all the génos of God (Zeus in his case, but for Paul it was the true God of the Bible).

You’re relying way too much on a word choice that you think has to be literal.

”He is a son to me.”

Someone in the far future could read a line like that and assume that means I must be a literal son.

I think Paul chose that word specifically (from the Greek philosopher) to make his logical argument, so of course I'm putting a lot of importance on Paul's choice of words.

The meaning of génos just doesn't seem to allow for the figurative relationship that you describe above.  There's a very good reason that the Latin word genus and the English word "genes" is derived from the Greek word génos .

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Plutarch would probably have been less than ten years old at this point. He was more of the “world-soul” type where human souls would be emanations of God.

The point is that the concept was known in that period of time.

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Premortal souls existing is a thing. Doesn’t really support a parent/child relationship between God and humanity. At least not one compatible with LDS theology.

I didn't say it supports a parent/child relationship (although Paul's Greek audience may have understood it that way).  The point is that we are the same kind of being as God, which was what Paul was teaching the Athenians too.  And the existence of premortal souls does support the idea that we are the same kind of being as God.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I agree.  Paul affirmed the existence of other gods elsewhere while denouncing the worship of idols (which is also done through the Old Testament as well).

But if humans and elements are mere creations, then they are both creations and therefore have no species or kind of being relationship to God, and that would not help Paul's argument.  And if humans have no relationship to God, then why couldn't God be gold or silver or stone?

What are you talking about? Nobody thought that any of their gods were actually the gold or silver or stone statues. That is not what Paul is arguing against. There was a belief that they could be an image of the deity. This is the way that many early Christians understood Jesus, as a living equivalent of an idol carrying the image and/or name of God. A superior version of an idol. This is how he transitions to Jesus and the resurrection.

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

What do you think the Greek word génos means that would preclude Aratus from conveying the idea that we are the same kind of being as God?  I don't know how to take that word in any other way than having a kind of being or species relationship, and that's the word that Aratus used and the word that Paul used when teaching the Athenians that we are all the génos of God.

I think the kind of being meaning is exactly how Paul's Greek audience would understand him. 

It is a poem. It is poetic. You’re also really hung up on this definition to the point that context seems to not matter at all.

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Even the near contemporary Greek Stoic philosopher, Epictetus (c 50 - 135 AD), understood humankind's relationship to Zeus that way.   In Epictetus Discourses, 1:13, he wrote:

"Slave yourself, will you not bear with your own brother, who has Zeus for his progenitor, and is like a son from the same seeds and of the same descent from above? But if you have been put in any such higher place, will you immediately make yourself a tyrant? Will you not remember who you are, and whom you rule? that they are kinsmen, that they are brethren by nature, that they are the offspring of Zeus? "

Zeus didn’t birth or even create humanity in Greek myth. Prometheus did. This is just acknowledging Zeus as the supreme deity. It is not suggesting a similarity in kind.

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think Paul chose that word specifically (from the Greek philosopher) to make his logical argument, so of course I'm putting a lot of importance on Paul's choice of words.

He did choose it carefully for his argument and it works (to a point). It does not support the LDS theology of gods and humanity being of the same type of being.

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The meaning of génos just doesn't seem to allow for the figurative relationship that you describe above.  There's a very good reason that the Latin word genus and the English word "genes" is derived from the Greek word génos .

It clearly does because the philosopher claims to be the offspring of Zeus when, again, Zeus did not create humanity much less birth them.

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The point is that the concept was known in that period of time.

I didn't say it supports a parent/child relationship (although Paul's Greek audience may have understood it that way).  The point is that we are the same kind of being as God, which was what Paul was teaching the Athenians too.  And the existence of premortal souls does support the idea that we are the same kind of being as God.

That is not what Paul was teaching nor does it establish in any way that humanity and the gods are the same kind of being.