From The "theophilus" Blog...

[Theophilus]

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?

Or how about simply that they heard God's voice as He walked?

At any rate, all these posts about God "walking" are red herrings, as God's ability to anthropomorphize (ie. take on a body) says absolutely nothing about His inherent spiritual nature (cf. John 4:24).

Theophilus

[freakin a man]

freakin a man,

Clearly does not sound like two feet walking ...

Oh my heavens. So if Bob hears the sound of Gene walking in a garden, Gene does not have two legs or feet? He feet don't step on the ground and leaves, the body is not brushing up against plants? Gene does not have a body? Well I think you know where I stand on this one. What else can I say.

[cksalmon]

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.

But your working model, that צלם necessarily refers to "a three-dimensional image or form" (taken from a book on Kabbalah, no less), is not immediately obvious. What other examples of image in the OT give you this idea?

Best.

CKS

[freakin a man]

But your working model, that צלם necessarily refers to "a three-dimensional image or form" (taken from a book on Kabbalah, no less), is not immediately obvious. What other examples of image in the OT give you this idea?

Best.

CKS

Genesis 1:26-27 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Image and likeness.

Image- tselem {tseh'-lem}-- 1) image 1a) images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods) 1b) image, likeness (of resemblance) 1c) mere, empty, image, semblance (figurative)

likeness- dmuwth {dem-ooth'}--1) likeness, similitude adverb 2) in the likeness of, like as

Dictionary definitions

Image 1) A person or thing very much like another; copy; counterpart; likeness. 2) a mental picture of something; conception; idea; impression.

Likeness 1) The state or quality of being like; similarity. 2) (the same) form or shape; semblance. SYN implies close correspondence in appearance, qualities, nature.

Semblance 1) Outward form or appearance. 2) The look or appearance of something else, resemblance. 3) a likeness, image, representation, or copy.

So for me its pretty clear. God has a body that has form. God made man after God's actual form, likeness, image, copy, ect.

[cksalmon]

Image- tselem {tseh'-lem}-- 1) image 1a) images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods) 1b) image, likeness (of resemblance) 1c) mere, empty, image, semblance (figurative)

likeness- dmuwth {dem-ooth'}--1) likeness, similitude adverb 2) in the likeness of, like as

I guess my question would be, why do you believe that the "likeness (of resemblance)" or the "similitude" or the being "in the likeness of" necessarily refers to materiality?

Exactly what the image of God might be has been debated throughout Church history. Lots of different answers have been proposed. For traditional Christianityâ?¢ (most broadly construed), none of those answersâ??at least none of which I'm aware, and certainly none that have had any lasting impactâ??involve materiality and bodily correspondence.

A sampling of some of the more influential:

from here.

1) Thomas Aquinas located the image in the human ability to think and reason, to use language and art, far surpassing the abilities of any animals.

2) Leonard Verduin says that the image consists in our dominion over animals and plants, which continues despite our sinfulness.

3) A ``widely accepted interpretation'' is that the ``image'' is our ability to make moral decisions, which involve self-awareness and social awareness.

4) Emil Brunner says that it is our ability to have a relationship with God, reflected in the tendency of all societies to have forms of worship.

I'm just not sure why, according to your view, that צלם must imply bodily correspondence.

Best.

CKS

[johnny]

freakin a man,

God has a body that has form. God made man after God's actual form, likeness, image, copy, ect.

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

[Orpheus]

Theophilus has been banned for a serious violation of board rules. I apologise to those wanting responses to their queries to him.

Note: Please do not post private messages in public forums without the permission of both authors. If anyone receives threatening or harrassing PMs or E-mails simply forward them to the moderators and we will take appropriate action.

[freakin a man]

freakin a man,

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

God has a form just like man. Man has two arms, two legs, two eyes ect just as man does because God made man after God likeness. Now I would say that "image" in Gen 1:26 does not prove that God has a body of flesh and bone but that he does have an actual shape or form. Even spirits have form that is like our bodies. We we die we will see that our spirits as well as those who are dead also have arms, legs, ect but there is no flesh and bone component to the form. That is added again later at the resurrection.

Yes man is in the image of the Son and the Son is in the Image of the unseen (by us) God but when the time comes that we do come to see God, we will see him as he is. If man is in the image of the Son and the Son in the image of God then man is in the image (form) of the unseen (invisible) God.

[Teancum]

Unfortunately, Johnny, Teancum is going to tell you that Gospel Principles isn't "official teaching". It appears that he belongs to a church that doesn't have a problem with publishing errant teaching.

That's one place where I think the Catholic Church wins out. I think the LDS church would do well to adopt a system similar to the RCC's "Imprimatur" and "Nihil Obstat" system.

Theophilus

Actually after thinking this over last night and understanding that the manual references the passage that I brought up I am conceding that I was overly harsh and in error.

Our manuals do teach what Johnny said, though personally I do not believe our scriptures do. But when an outsider says "hey, this is what your teaching manual says and it is quoting from the exact passage of LDS scripture that you are quoting" it is disingenuous of me to back peddle on it.

So Johnny and Theo, I apologize.

yes, our manuals teach that Jesus is the firstborn of heavenly parents.

I am curious though when our own scripture cannot be used to support such an idea why our manuals teach this and even more I am wondering on what basis this doctrine came to be part of LDS doctrine.

Teancum

[Teancum]

To sum this up,

Yes Mormons believe in a God that has a nature that is different then the God of the creeds. Is this God different from the God of the Bible? Certainly there are unique things the LDS believe about God that the Bible is silent on. Does this meant those things are not true? For those who believe the Bible is the pure and perfect Only Word of God (a debatable point in and of itself) of course it does... at least as far as they may understand the and interpret the Bible. However, an honest Biblicist needs to understand that the development of how they view God took hundreds of years to develop and is still undergoing modifications by some. It seems pretty clear as one studies the development of the trinity doctrine that ideas about God's character as well as other doctrines (creation out of nothing for example) came to being because the ideas that Christ was the incarnation of God made God all too human and to much like us. This did not bode well with the culture of the day and so much of what our orthodox friends believe came about to make sure God was not too much like us. Creation out of nothing came to be because God was too "weak" if he used pre-existing matter or organized chaos to make the universe. Of course the earliest Christians and the Israelites never had such a notion. Even the Nicene creed made God almost too human and thus the theologians of the day took steps to modify and mystify the doctrines about God's nature.

Then along comes Joseph Smith and claims to see God. Not only that God has a body just like the son does. Not only that but we are of the same species. And so Orthodox Christians, who for some reason seem to think God has to be some sort of impassable and beyond our understanding type of being in order to be able so save us, or whatever, are certainly going to condemn it. Joseph, just like early uncorrupted Christianity, brought God to close to us and for some reasoned that really bugs human beings.

Personally I have no problem with any of this. Even in its short history the LDS ideas about God have changed and still seem to be. Never the less, Mormons are Christians as much as any other sect. Just not orthodox. Heretical so many Christians as well. And that is fine. If Mormons hold true to their foundations we think the other Christians are apostates and have no valid authority from God to do much of anything.

Teancum

[consiglieri]

freakin a man,

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

Dear Johnny,

This is where you lose me. If man is in the image of the Son, and the Son is in the image of the invisible God, then man is in the image of the invisible God.

If a = b = c, then a = c.

This is a solid LDS argument for why it is that God does have a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[docrick]

The link I provided in its present form must be â??cut and pastedâ?? to work. Here is a more â??functionalâ?? link:

http://phils-page.blogspot.com/

Hope it works this timeâ?¦

All perspective my friend. I think it is you who believe in a different Jesus than is revealed in the scriptures. We LDS worship Jesus of Nazereth, who was born of Mary and is the Son of God.

[latterdayteancum]

Dear Johnny,

This is where you lose me. If man is in the image of the Son, and the Son is in the image of the invisible God, then man is in the image of the invisible God.

If a = b = c, then a = c.

This is a solid LDS argument for why it is that God does have a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consiglieri,

Didn't you know that man is invisible without body of flesh and bones? All that health and science garbage is myth. Johnny's logic makes total sense!

[docrick]

freakin a man,

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

Help me here; if the Son is in the image of an invisible God isn't he then invisible?

Tell me how something "invisible" has "an image"

Seems to me if something has a definable "image" it is not invisible.

[Son]

Son,

No one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification.

It is by grace that we are saved and it is by grace that our works can bear fruit.

I'm refering to Righteousness. Not salvation. There is a difference to me.

Man's merit is due to God's grace and secondly to man's collaboration.

Grace is a gift to be able to continue to learn. Desire is what brings merits, not to boast but to be.

The Father wants us to have all He has.

Everything we experience here is to learn to be like Him, We have to take our first steps, God gives us the tools, in this case- Legs. He gives us a desire to walk, to get our bellys out of the dirt/or carpet in America. He gives us teeth to chew our food and the rest to digest it.

Grace does not mean He does everything for us. We have to participate in a great capacity to become like Him. To Be worthy to behold His Face and live in His house.

[urroner]

Help me here; if the Son is in the image of an invisible God isn't he then invisible?

Tell me how something "invisible" has "an image"

Seems to me if something has a definable "image" it is not invisible.

Definition of invisible:

invisible â??adjective

1. not visible; not perceptible by the eye: invisible fluid.

2. withdrawn from or out of sight; hidden: an invisible seam.

3. not perceptible or discernible by the mind: invisible differences.

4. not ordinarily found in financial statements or reflected in statistics or a listing: Goodwill is an invisible asset to a business.

5. concealed from public knowledge.

â??noun

6. an invisible thing or being.

7. the invisible, the unseen or spiritual world.

Well, every definition there seems to indicate that God can be totally of flesh and bone and still be invisible if it's not perceptible by the eye or withdrawn from or out of sight or hidden.

[docrick]

Definition of invisible:

invisible â??adjective

1. not visible; not perceptible by the eye: invisible fluid.

2. withdrawn from or out of sight; hidden: an invisible seam.

3. not perceptible or discernible by the mind: invisible differences.

4. not ordinarily found in financial statements or reflected in statistics or a listing: Goodwill is an invisible asset to a business.

5. concealed from public knowledge.

â??noun

6. an invisible thing or being.

7. the invisible, the unseen or spiritual world.

Well, every definition there seems to indicate that God can be totally of flesh and bone and still be invisible if it's not perceptible by the eye or withdrawn from or out of sight or hidden.

OK then if we define God as being invisible because He his hidden away from our eyes then truly Christ, God, Angels and even you Urroner are invisible to me at least.

I don't think that is how invisible is being defined here. If Johnny comes on and agrees that his definition of God being invisible is simply that He his "out of sight or hidden" then I can accept that. Very few have seen God.

[consiglieri]

If God is invisible in the sense that nobody can see him and that nobody has ever seen him, then the Bible has yet another in a long list of contradictions, inasmuch as it records numerous people actually seeing God.

So I think it wiser to define God's invisibility in that he remains invisible unless he chooses to manifest himself in a visible manner.

I am invisible to you, right now, but I assure you I am corpulent.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[latterdayteancum]

I think Johnny was referring to definition 4:

4. not ordinarily found in financial statements or reflected in statistics or a listing

I can testify that I have never seen God in my financial statement. However I do see His blessings reflected when doing my budget...so maybe Johnny is wrong about that too!

I hope the mods don't revoke my posting privileges for bad jokes.

[cksalmon]

If God is invisible in the sense that nobody can see him and that nobody has ever seen him, then the Bible has yet another in a long list of contradictions, inasmuch as it records numerous people actually seeing God.

So I think it wiser to define God's invisibility in that he remains invisible unless he chooses to manifest himself in a visible manner.

I am invisible to you, right now, but I assure you I am corpulent.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

cor

[freakin a man]

If God is invisible in the sense that nobody can see him and that nobody has ever seen him, then the Bible has yet another in a long list of contradictions, inasmuch as it records numerous people actually seeing God.

So I think it wiser to define God's invisibility in that he remains invisible unless he chooses to manifest himself in a visible manner.

I am invisible to you, right now, but I assure you I am corpulent.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I don't like the word "invisible". I like the word "unseen" better. But either way it really does not matter. Its not saying that the unseen or invisible God can not be seen, just that he is unseen to the general masses. If God wants to show himself to someone for a particular reason, than the unseen God can be seen. Such has been the case from time to time.

You are completely right. I am invisible or unseen to everyone in this message board. But my wife and son see me. I could make myself seen by you or others if I wanted to by various means.

[consiglieri]

cor

[cksalmon]

Good to hear from you, CKS,

Though I don't have an avatar featuring donuts yet, this is one instance where I actually chose my word with care. Thanks for getting the joke!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Perhaps you don't know my full name: CK "Sedentary" Salmon.

I'm edging on you, bro.

CKS

[T-Shirt]

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.

Who's Mother was Adam referring to in Genesis 2:24?

T-Shirt

[Magyar]

Who's Mother was Adam referring to in Genesis 2:24?

T-Shirt

Ooh, touche, touche! I'd never thought of that scripture THAT way before! I'd love to see the response.

And I am quite amused that once again, we are admonished by the legendary Johnny to ditch our physical bodies and become spirits in order to properly worship God.

And I am saddened by the idea of my beloved Heavenly Mother being dragged all over this thread as if she were some abominable pagan conception. I would never stoop to making such comments about Mary, Mother of God, so beloved to Catholics. There are plenty of other things we can discuss or disagree about and I have advocated my stand before for doing so. Can we leave Her alone?

I wish that our belief in our Heavenly Mother and the counsel by our leaders to not discuss Her in detail and with anything but respect, could be respected on this board much as we do the temple ceremony -- even made taboo by the mods.