From The "theophilus" Blog...

[DH]

Daniel Heath,

For me, it makes sense to believe the Bible. The Bible does not reveal a Heavenly Mother.

The Apostolic Christian believes Jesus is the only begotten of the Heavenly Father.

Mormons believe Jesus is the Son of a Heavenly Mother.

Johnny, you have a father, do you not? Does that mean you do not have a mother? Of course not!

Could you describe "the Word" ... Is the "word" a spirit person ... is "the Word" a angel like Satan?

Well, Jesus is certainly not "like Satan!" Yes, before Jesus was made incarnate He was, by definition, a spirit person. Before I answer your question about whether or not the Word was an angel, would you please define the word "angel" for me? Thanks.

It means that the Bible does not list a heavenly mother, the Bible does not support the Mormon teaching of a Heavenly Mother.

I believe in the Jesus who was not born of a heavenly mother because this is what the Bible reveals.

Where does the Bible reveal there is no Heavenly Mother? I grant you that it does not openly teach there is a Heavenly Mother, but neither does it state that She doesn't exist.

The important thing to remember, however, is that both you and I believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotton Son of God in the Flesh. He is the New Testament revelation of God in the flesh, saying what the Father would say, and doing exactly what the Father would do, in His place. Heavenly Mother is important, but She is not the message of the New Testament. The purpose of the New Testament is to reveal to us the character of God by showing us God the Son Himself, living on this earth and showing us the way. This is why it's important that He is the Son of the Father, and it seems to me we are agreed upon that.

[johnny]

Daniel Heath,

Johnny, you have a father, do you not? Does that mean you do not have a mother? Of course not!

I have a Creator that made me, the Creator does not need a Heavenly Mother to form a creature like me.

Yes, before Jesus was made incarnate He was, by definition, a spirit person.

Why do you say "by definition, a spirit person"? "the Word" by defination is not a spirit person.

Before I answer your question about whether or not the Word was an angel, would you please define the word "angel" for me? Thanks.

For me "angel" is a created being.

Psalm 148

[2] Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

[5] Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

Where does the Bible reveal there is no Heavenly Mother?

The Bible reveals no Heavenly Mother when Eve was formed.

1Tim 2

[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Gen 2

[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

I grant you that it does not openly teach there is a Heavenly Mother, but neither does it state that She doesn't exist.

I agree that the Bible does not teach a Heavenly Mother.

The Bible reveals that the Father is neither man nor woman.

Heavenly Mother is important, but She is not the message of the New Testament.

The message of the New Testament is that the Son was "the Word" prior to his incarnation that he is God, he is not "a God". He is the only begotten of the Father.

John 1

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

[Theophilus]

Johnny, you have a father, do you not? Does that mean you do not have a mother? Of course not!

Non sequitur.

We're talking about God (Jesus), not humans (eg. Johnny).

You are taking something about humans, and trying to extrapolate that onto God.

You have no Biblical basis for doing so, except for your own preconceived beliefs.

Where does the Bible reveal there is no Heavenly Mother? I grant you that it does not openly teach there is a Heavenly Mother, but neither does it state that She doesn't exist.

Would "Heavenly Mother" be a god?

If so, then Deut. 4:35, 39, 6:4, 2 Sam. 22:32, 2 Kings 19:15,19, Psalm 18:31, 86:10, Isa. 37:16,20, 44:6,8, 45:5,21,22, 46:9, John 17:3, 1 Tim. 2:5, etc. would all explicitly deny her existence.

Theophilus

[DH]

You guys think sex is dirty, or what?!?

True that God is vastly unlike us. People sometimes accuse us of anthropomorphizing God. However, we believe just the opposite--God made us in His image, not the other way around! (Check out Genesis, dude.) It is also true that He is our Father. So, it makes sense that we should be like Him, no? Sorry, I couldn't resist--it's just that things that make sense appeal to me so much more than things that don't. Your point is well taken, though--we cannot figure God out by reason alone. However, this certainly does not mean we ought to eschew reason entirely--God gave us brains for a purpose.

We don't believe that He was "born" prior to the incarnation, let alone that a heavenly "mother" was involved.

I gathered that. *wry grin*

Truth isn't determined by "what makes sense":

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Pro 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

When the "noble Bereans" were testing Paul's teachings, they didn't use "did it make sense" as their litmus test

You really have a problem with reason, don't you?!

It seems to me that "what could possibly make more sense?" is nothing more than rationalizing speculation.

It's a good thing, then, that we LDS believe in the gifts of revelation and prophecy. Precisely because we cannot rely (entirely) upon our own intellect, we have modern-day prophets, in addition to personal revelation from God. If you're seeking truth, what better source to go to than the Author of all truth (including the Scriptures)?

As Johnny and I have both pointed out from the Bible, God is not a "man", there is no "male and female" in deity, so one cannot assume that "Heavenly Father" needs a "Heavenly Mother".

I must have missed something--I didn't see where either of you pointed out, from the Bible for from anywhere else, that God is not a man and that there is no male and female in deity. If there is no male or female in deity, then why does the Bible consistently refer to God as "He," and the "Father?" Those terms are gender-specific.

The apostolic Christians never taught "heavenly mother".

The apostolic Christians never taught that the word was "born prior to the incarnation".

Neither does the Bible teach against either of these things, and the Bible does make it clear that the Word at least existed with God "In the beginning," which I take to mean prior to the incarnation. BTW, when you talk about "apostolic Christians," who are you talking about? I'm referring to the Bible, here, and those who wrote it. If your "apostolic Christians" are people who came after the Bible, I ask you by what authority do they speak? I'm beginning to wonder if you don't believe the Church Fathers more than you do the Bible...

Again, you are trying to compare God to human males.

God is not a human male.

God does not have a "sex".

Sez who?

Ah yes, your hang-up with sex again. IMO, sex (within marriage) is approved by God. And He did make us in His image: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." So, are we in God's image or not? If so, He has gender. Or don't you believe the Bible?

[DH]

Why do you say "by definition, a spirit person"? "the Word" by defination is not a spirit person.

Because prior to the incarnation, He had no physical body. I believe that when a person is born (becomes carnate), his pre-existent spirit enters a physical body. Therefore, before a person is born, he is incarnate. By definition.

For me "angel" is a created being.

Please be more specific. I honestly do not intend to make fun of you here, but by your definition, a Labrador retriever is an "angel." While I really do love dogs, and sometimes think they can be real "angels" (metaphorically), somehow I do not think that is what you meant.

The Bible reveals that the Father is neither man nor woman.

Really? Where, exactly, does the Bible reveal this?

The message of the New Testament is that the Son was "the Word" prior to his incarnation that he is God, he is not "a God". He is the only begotten of the Father.

John 1

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Nothing about atonement? Nothing about salvation? Nothing about the nature of God?

Check out John 14:7-11:

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very worksâ?? sake.

The New Testament is a marvelous revelation of God the Father, through Jesus Christ, who is God the Son.

Would "Heavenly Mother" be a god?

*sigh* No, She would be a goddess.

[Theophilus]

You guys think sex is dirty, or what?!?

It has absolutely nothing to do with allegedly thinking that sex is "dirty" (and of course, it's not).

It's simply a matter of Biblical revelation.

That doesn't change, no matter what someone's opinion of "sex" has to be.

True that God is vastly unlike us. People sometimes accuse us of anthropomorphizing God. However, we believe just the opposite--God made us in His image, not the other way around! (Check out Genesis, dude.)

Why would you assume that that passage is referring to a physical "image"?

And if so, does that mean that women aren't made in God's image (since God, according to you, is male)?

I gathered that. *wry grin*

You really have a problem with reason, don't you?!

No, I only have a problem with philosphies which have no Scriptural merit.

Why don't you try refraining from ad hominem?

I must have missed something--I didn't see where either of you pointed out, from the Bible for from anywhere else, that God is not a man

Okay, allow me to repeat myself...

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Job 9:32 For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.

I originally posted that just two hours ago.

How is it that you missed it?

If there is no male or female in deity, then why does the Bible consistently refer to God as "He," and the "Father?"

What would you recommend as an alternative?

Referring to Him as an impersonal "it"?

Neither does the Bible teach against either of these things, and the Bible does make it clear that the Word at least existed with God "In the beginning," which I take to mean prior to the incarnation.

Of course He existed prior to the incarnation.

He existed from all eternity (John 8:58, John 1:1, etc.)

BTW, when you talk about "apostolic Christians," who are you talking about? I'm referring to the Bible, here, and those who wrote it. If your "apostolic Christians" are people who came after the Bible, I ask you by what authority do they speak?

I'm referring to the same group.

Please quote where the apostolic Christians taught anything about "heavenly mother".

Please quote where the apostolic Christians taught that Jesus was "born" prior to the incarnation.

They never taught any such thing.

Ah yes, your hang-up with sex again.

Please refrain from these personal attacks.

I have no such "hang-up".

IMO, sex (within marriage) is approved by God.

Hey, I agree with you. Surprised?!

I don't have any "hang up" about sex. I don't think sex is "dirty".

So please stop the personal attacks.

And He did make us in His image: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." So, are we in God's image or not?

Of course He did.

But why do you assume that He's talking about "physical" or "sexual" image?

If so, He has gender.

That's a gigantic non sequitur.

You are assuming that the "image" referred to is a "physical"/"sexual" image.

You have not demonstrated that.

Nor have you dealt with:

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Job 9:32 For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.

Or don't you believe the Bible?

Certainly I believe the Bible.

I simply don't believe your misinterpretations.

Theophilus

[DH]

He is not a human, my friend!

[freakin a man]

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Job 9:32 For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.

Theophilus

These passages need to be read in full. The purpose is to show that God perfected state verses man's fallen state. It has nothing to do with whether God has two arms, two legs, has a body like man. If that where the case then Jesus was also a liar and needed to repent since he had and still has a physical body like two arms and two legs.

So when you read the passage in full, it has nothing to do with LDS believing that God is a perfect, exalted MAN.

[johnny]

Daniel Heath,

Because prior to the incarnation, He had no physical body. I believe that when a person is born (becomes carnate), his pre-existent spirit enters a physical body

I believe that that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God because this is what the Bible reveals. The Bible does not reveal man pre-existed like the LDS church teaches.

Please be more specific.

Angels are spiritual, non-corporeal beings. As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures. St. Augustine says: "'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel'"

Really? Where, exactly, does the Bible reveal this?

The Bible reveals "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24). Jesus says a spirit has no flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).

Check out John 14:7-11:

DO you believe verse 10 (see below), Mormon scriptures reveal the Father cannot dwell in a man, the Bible contradicts Mormon scripture because the Bible reveals the Father can dwell in a man.

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

The New Testament is a marvelous revelation of God the Father, through Jesus Christ, who is God the Son.

Neither the Old nor the New Testament reveals that Jesus was born of a heavenly mother like the LDS church teaches.

[Bill Hamblin]

Num 23:19 God is not a man [ish], that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man [adam], that he should repent.

Job 9:32 For he is not a man [ish], as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.

Theophilus

"The Lord is a man (ish) of war" (Ex 15:3)

"The Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day.  He looked up and saw three men [ish, pl. enashim] standing near him." (Gen 18:1-2; 18:13, 16-17)

Manoah and his wife meet a man (ish) (Judg 13:8, 10, 11) who is the "angel of the Lord" (13:13, 16, 17, 20), and then they fear that "we shall surely die, for we have seen God" (13:22).

[Theophilus]

These passages need to be read in full.

And even when "read in full", they clearly teach that God is not a man.

The purpose is to show that God perfected state verses man's fallen state.

And how exactly do you get that from the context?

It's one thing to say, "need to be read in full".

It's quite another thing altogether to try to support your position.

It has nothing to do with whether God has two arms, two legs, has a body like man. If that where the case then Jesus was also a liar and needed to repent since he had and still has a physical body like two arms and two legs.

Well, no.

First of all, those passages I quoted are referring to God the Father, not God the Son.

Second of all, Jesus (the Word) wasn't inherently a man, but He became man, He "took on a body of flesh", something foreign to His natural inherent state.

So that wouldn't make Jesus a "liar" at all.

Theophilus

[johnny]

freakin a man,

It has nothing to do with whether God has two arms, two legs, has a body like man.

The Father does not have two arms, two legs, has a body like man ... God is a spirit.

In John 4:24 Jesus teaches us: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." This means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being. As Jesus tells us elsewhere, "a spirit has not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). There is a big difference between being a spirit and having a spirit. Jesus says that the Father is a spirit, not that the Father has a spirit; this means that he lacks a body entirely.

The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and loudly declared the fact that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple ("incomposite") natureâ??that is, a nature containing no parts.

[freakin a man]

"The words image . . . and likeness . . . the second interprets the first by underlining the idea of correspondence and similarityâ??[they] refer to the whole of man and do not relate solely to his spiritual and intellectual being: they relate equally, if not first and foremost, to the splendor of [God's] bodily form."(Gehard Von Rad, Theology of Israel's Historical Traditions, 2 vols., (New York: Harper, 1962) 1:146.)

"For centuries an anthropomorphic idea of God was to prevail. This means that he was thought of as a sort of super-human being, with eyes, ears, arms, hands, etc. and emotions like a human being. The person who wrote that God made â??man in his own imageâ? was thinking like this." (B. J. Campbell, The Old Testament for Modern Readers (1974) 19-21)

[johnny]

Bill Hamblin,

"The Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day.  He looked up and saw three men [ish, pl. enashim] standing near him." (Gen 18:1-2; 18:13, 16-17)

It was "the angel of his presence". Throughout the Old Testament angels are referred to lords.

Isa 63

[9] In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.

Gen 19

[1] And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

[2] And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

[18] And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord:

[24] Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Manoah and his wife meet a man (ish) (Judg 13:8, 10, 11) who is the "angel of the Lord" (13:13, 16, 17, 20), and then they fear that "we shall surely die, for we have seen God" (13:22).

An "angel of the Lord" has the Lord's "name in them" (Exod 23:21).

Exod 23

[20] Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.

[21] Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

[22] But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

[Theophilus]

"The words image . . . and likeness . . . the second interprets the first by underlining the idea of correspondence and similarityâ??[they] refer to the whole of man and do not relate solely to his spiritual and intellectual being: they relate equally, if not first and foremost, to the splendor of [God's] bodily form."(Gehard Von Rad, Theology of Israel's Historical Traditions, 2 vols., (New York: Harper, 1962) 1:146.)

And why should anyone accept the above opinion?

What reasons does Von Rad offer in support of his opinion?

"For centuries an anthropomorphic idea of God was to prevail. This means that he was thought of as a sort of super-human being, with eyes, ears, arms, hands, etc. and emotions like a human being. The person who wrote that God made â??man in his own imageâ? was thinking like this." (B. J. Campbell, The Old Testament for Modern Readers (1974) 19-21)

And why should anyone accept the above opinion?

What reasons does Campell offer in support of his opinion?

Are we to take our understanding from God's revealed word, or are we to take it from the philosphies of men such as Von Rad and Campbell?

Theophilus

[johnny]

freakin a man,

to the splendor of [God's] bodily form."

Man is in the image of the Son, the Son is the image of the invisible God.

"For centuries an anthropomorphic idea of God was to prevail.

The Church Fathers loudly declared the fact that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple ("incomposite") natureâ??that is, a nature containing no parts.

Origen

No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however, that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words "when" and "never" are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity.

[freakin a man]

freakin a man,

The Father does not have two arms, two legs, has a body like man ... God is a spirit.

In John 4:24 Jesus teaches us: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." This means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being. As Jesus tells us elsewhere, "a spirit has not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). There is a big difference between being a spirit and having a spirit. Jesus says that the Father is a spirit, not that the Father has a spirit; this means that he lacks a body entirely.

The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and loudly declared the fact that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple ("incomposite") natureâ??that is, a nature containing no parts.

Referring to John 4:24:

â??God is spiritual, we do not mean that he has no body . . . but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure.â?(Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1994) 98)

"Is the human form one which God assumes for the sake of appearance; or is there an essential continuity between the form and God as God is, or both? It would be a mistake to move to a consideration of God as spirit in this connection. It is remarkable how seldom the OT, and even the NT, uses such language to speak of God. . . . The spiritual and the physical/material are not mutually exclusive categories. To speak of God as spirit does not necessarily entail formlessness." (Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God , 102)

"Nowhere in the Bible can there be said to be a â??doctrine' of God's spiritualityâ?? unless one were to except John 4:24. The spirit of God is not to be identified with God himself. [God] is conceived in personal, even corporeal terms, and perhaps the most vivid example and the climax of this anthropomorphism is to be found in the doctrine of the Incarnation"(G. Ernest Wright, Interpreter's Bible, 1:362)

Which Church Fathers. 2nd Century or 4th Century?

[johnny]

freakin a man,

Referring to John 4:24:

God Has No Body

http://www.catholic.com/library/God_Has_No_Body.asp

Mormon's argue that man is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26â??27). In doing this, they profoundly misunderstand Scripture. In John 4:24 Jesus teaches us: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." This means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being. As Jesus tells us elsewhere, "a spirit has not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). There is a big difference between being a spirit and having a spirit. Mormon's argue that man is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26â??27). In doing this, they profoundly misunderstand Scripture. In John 4:24 Jesus teaches us: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." This means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being. As Jesus tells us elsewhere, "a spirit has not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). There is a big difference between being a spirit and having a spirit.

God is Incorporeal

http://www.saintaquinas.com/article3.html

John 4:24 quotes: "God is a spirit". Additionally, the 4th Lateran Council and the Vatican Council teach: "God is absolutely simple" (De Fide). Since God is absolutely simple it must follow that he is a spirit.

Anthropomorphism confuses the interpretation of Genesis 1:26 which states, "Let us make man in our image after our likeness." Based on the mistaken interpretation of Genesis 1:26, Anthropomorphists believe that humans are made in the same material form as God. St. Thomas Aquinas proves that this idea is patently false by showing that the cosmological proof reveals God to exist in complete actuality. As a result of this actuality, it follows that God cannot be in potential and therefore must be entirely simple and without parts. If God had parts, a potential for movement would exist and Aquinas has already shown that God has no potential.

Thus Genesis 1:26 is an analogy between the spiritual nature of man and God; the quote is not an analogy between the material form of man and God. Anthropomorphism was part of the Audian heresy and is part of modern day Mormonism (Church of Latter-day Saints).

God is Simple

http://www.saintaquinas.com/article5.html

God is not composed or divisible by any physical or metaphysical means. Simplicity of God refers to the fact that he has no parts. The simplicity teaching extends to the entire nature of God. His substance, nature, and very being is that of utter simplicity. The properties usually attributed to God such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence do not contradict the teaching of simplicity because each property is a different way of looking at the infinite active being of God from a limited perspective. One consequence of this teaching is the fact that since God is simple, he must be a pure spirit.

The dogma of simplicity follows from the teachings of the 4th Lateran Council and the first Vatican Council which stated that God is an absolutely simple substance or nature. The basis of this De Fide dogma can be found within the gospel of John, "God is a spirit" (John 4:24).

[Theophilus]

Referring to John 4:24:

"Nowhere in the Bible can there be said to be a â??doctrine' of God's spiritualityâ?? unless one were to except John 4:24. The spirit of God is not to be identified with God himself. [God] is conceived in personal, even corporeal terms, and perhaps the most vivid example and the climax of this anthropomorphism is to be found in the doctrine of the Incarnation"(G. Ernest Wright, Interpreter's Bible, 1:362)

freakin,

All these philosphers and "scholars" you keep quoting... What reason can you give for us to accept their personal opinion (or as LDS like to say, "private interpretations")?

And if we are to accept them on these subjects (which I don't believe you are even interpreting correctly), do you accept their view of the Nicene Trinity, monotheism, and other non-LDS doctrines?

If not, why not?

I guess I just find it pointless when others go around quoting people for the sole reason that they happen to agree with the quoter's viewpoint, even though that same poster is inconsistent in not accepting their own source's views on other doctrines.

Theophilus

[freakin a man]

I just go with the view that the word "image" in Genesis is from Tselem which "refers to a three-dimensional image or form." (On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah., Gershom Sholem, 1991, Schocken Books, 17) It is from this working model that the scriptures make sense. This is how God could walk in the garden and Adam could hear the sound of god walking. He could hear God walking because God had a body. The KJV has the word "voice" but it should be "sound". There are many other reasons.

[johnny]

freakin a man,

Which Church Fathers. 2nd Century or 4th Century?

Try 228 A.D.

Clement of Alexandria: Miscellanies 5:12 [A.D. 208]

"The first substance is everything which subsists by itself, as a stone is called a substance. The second is a substance capable of increase, as a plant grows and decays. The third is animated and sentient substance, as animal, horse. The fourth is animate, sentient, rational substance, as man. Wherefore each one of us is made as consisting of all, having an immaterial soul and a mind, which is the image of God" (Fragment from On Providence [A.D. 200]). ... "Being is in God. God is divine being, eternal and without beginning, incorporeal and illimitable, and the cause of what exists. Being is that which wholly subsists. Nature is the truth of things, or the inner reality of them. According to others, it is the production of what has come to existence; and according to others, again, it is the providence of God, causing the being, and the manner of being, in the things which are produced" (ibid.). ... "What is God? â??God,â?? as the Lord says, â??is a spirit.â?? Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal, and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length, and depth. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself" (ibid.). ... "No one can rightly express him wholly. For on account of his greatness he is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of him. For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form"

Try 225 A.D.

Origen

No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however, that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words "when" and "never" are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity.

freakin a man,

This is how God could walk in the garden and Adam could hear the sound of god walking.

God did not walk in the garden ... they heard the voice walking ...

Gen.3

[8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

[freakin a man]

Gen 3:8 "And they heard the voice [qowl] of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."

qowl {kole} or qol {kole} http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...51325-5483.html

a) voice, sound, noise

sound (of instrument)

2) lightness, frivolity

Gen 3:8 "And they heard the sound [qowl] of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."

Are we to assume that God's voice walks or that he walks therefore they heard the sound or noise that God was making as he was walking? I think the latter.

[KevinG]

God did not walk in the garden ... they heard the voice walking ...

Gen.3

[8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Gen. 5: 22

22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

[johnny]

freakin a man,

Gen.3

[8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden

Clearly does not sound like two feet walking ...

Dadof7,

Gen. 5: 22

22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

To "walk with God" is to walk in his ways ...

[latterdayteancum]

Theophilus,

I appreciate the time and energy you have put into our communication but please refrain from insults and being condescending. I have been completely respectful of your position, and have learned a lot from you. I would ask that you at least show that same respect.

Once again, "non-Biblical", by definition, means "not in the Bible".

If it's not in the Bible to begin with, there is nothing we can "show" you.

All we can do is point to the entire Bible and say, "it's nowhere in there".

If you can't show me that the teaching of Heavenly Parents is non-biblical than what would you call your previous posts? I feel you have done a tremendous job (in terms of effort and information) in supporting Johnny's charge that the teaching of Heavenly Parents is non-biblical. When someone posts their opinion on this board, it is only normal to want an explanation, and not just a drive by criticism. What with be the purpose of this discussion board if no one supported their claims? Let's stay on topic here and not divert from the subject.

Quite the contrary, you need to demonstrate that it is "Biblical", by showing where the Bible teaches Heavenly "Parents" (a term never used in the Bible for God), a "plurality" of heavenly "parents" (when the bible only teaches of a singular, "Father"), or the existence of a heavenly "Mother" (which again, the Bible never teaches).

I have tried to demonstrate that there are Heavenly Parents by referring to scriptures where Christ and other Apostles refer to God as "Father" and we as His "children." I am sorry that you disagree with my scriptural support but its not as if I haven't said anything to support my claim.

To claim that you don't want to show your beliefs to be Biblicaly by appealing to humility, "my explanations are bound to fall short", seems to imply that your beliefs are Biblical, only you don't feel capable of demonstrating such. Such an assertion seems disingenuous to the extreme. If you cannot demonstrate that such beliefs are Biblical, is it not at least a possibility that the reason you cannot do so, is because they aren't Biblical?

Because it's not Biblical.

I never said I didn't want to share my beliefs, I said that it is possible that the support I have given (and I have given support...right or wrong, I haven't been silent) isn't sufficient to you. I have shared reasons and scriptures that I feel support my position on Heavenly Parents. I appealed to my humility because I believe humility is a Christ-like attribute and imperative to a good doctrinal discussion. I know that I am not the most learned person when it comes to theology and the scriptures. Would you rather me be arrogant? Why are you taking stabs where they don't need to be taken?

If you disagree, show us "parents", or "plural" or "heavenly mother" from the Bible.

I guess we thought it was obvious, and went without saying, that a claim that something is "Biblical" has the burden of proof to demonstrate it from the Bible.

Thanks for another stab. Each comment you make like this hurts your credibility in my eyes. You may not care, but I started this discussion with a lot of respect for you. I feel that I have shown that in my posts. But when you take stabs that aren't needed and don't help the doctrinal discussion its counterproductive to sharing knowledge with one another. So please refrain from insulting me.

I did not originally post "The LDS teaching that we have Heavenly Parents is biblical." If I had I could see how the burden of proof would fall on me. Johnny posted that the LDS teaching of Heavenly Parents was not biblical and than was silent. I call that drive by criticism, and if we all participated in these type of posts this board wouldn't be of much good to anyone. But is this really the point? What good is focusing on this?