Tertullian Mentions "holy Garments"

[rhinomelon]

Tertullian would have rejected today's notion of the trinity so he is certainly not operating from the standpoint of 'traditional' Christianity

Tertullian was the one who coined the "three persons in one substance" formula that was so influential in the doctrine of the Trinity, so I don't think you're correct there. I would also argue that Tertullian would have a much bigger problem with LDS tritheism than he ever would with the Trinity. However, that is beside the point of the thread here.

The garment is meant to represent the coat of skins, and as I do not think the term would accurately reflect common clothing, nor would it be a common term in Tertullian's time, I think it is both easy and reasonable to conceive that this is what he was speaking about. Not that we can say so with absolute certainty at all, but it could fit the bill.

So basically, because Tertullian spoke of "coat of skins", and temple garments represent that coat of skins in the modern LDS church, Tertullian is therefore speaking of LDS temple garments. As you said, one cannot say this with absolute certainty. I would go further, and say that the comparison is based much more on current LDS thinking, and not what Tertullian wrote or believe. That's just my opinion, of course.

Or, more to the point, today's Christians bring up Tertulian's quote as a way to share a giggle, and LDS critics bring up Brigham's quotes as evidence that the church is not true.

While I don't really care what Brigham Young said about blacks and the priesthood (there are other much more interesting topics to talk about, in my opinion), I would submit that Young's position relative to the church, and Tertullian's position relative to the church, make a world of difference in this matter.

Take care, everyone

[Loquacious Lurker]

Uh-oh:

" The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Since the garments mentioned in your Exodus quotes were for the priests, it looks as though women were not allowed to wear them also. It's either a blatent contradiction, or else women did not wear garments.

Either way....

Edited to add: That quote was Deut. 22:5

[soren]

Lets call it a physical nothingness then if you want to split hairs.

I will not call it a physical nothingness either. Since God reveals himself as "I AM," I will not deny being to God in any respect. I believe that there is no degree of actuality or being that matter possesses which God does not also possess except in an unlimited way, without the inherent boundaries and deficiencies (modes of non-being) inherent in material existence. For instance, God exists in space as matter does, but is not contained by space as matter is. Further, since I believe that God is the cause of matter, physical existence owes its being to Him, deriving from his supreme super-existence, which gives its own being to matter in order for matter to exist at all. "Physical nothingness" does not describe such a God nor his relation to the material world. This is not hair splitting; this is foundational to my faith.

I realize that this may differ from your understanding, so I'm not angry, but please know that in asking me to defend a notion of God involving involving any thought of "nothingness" you ask me to defend a position that I find abhorrent.

The point is that you do not believe that God is a physical being with an image that is actually a visual image, the only sort of image there is. When not given another adjective to suggest something like spiritual, it is what this word means. If it had only said likeness, you would have a case. But an image is a vision of a physical thing. And to say that God has an image and that man resembles is clear reference to a physical resemblance, even if people have been denying it for over 1700 years.

The main reason for holding that the divine image is a spiritual one is that this view is more honoring to God - and to man as well. This is because the spirit is a higher thing than the body. After all, I would rather loose my arm than my capacity to love. Love is more important than my arm. But if my arm is the part of me that images God, it follows that the image of God is not the most important part of me.

By the way, I do not deny that the body has a great role in imaging God. Man is spiritual, but he is a spiritual animal. For man to exercise the attributes of the spirit, he needs a body through which the soul may act. The body is designed for the purposes of the spirit and therefore contributes to the divine image, which would be imperfectly held by the soul if it had no body. This is very important because the body is in fact visible. Man is visible and is therefore an image, even if the thing he images is not visible. Consider that Paul speaks of Christ as "the image of the invisible God." (Col. 1:15) The very presence of this phrase in scripture is a precedent for the traditional understanding.

I also believe that God became a human being so as to elevate human nature to be more like Him. In that sense He does have a form which can be touched, felt seen, glorified. It was indeed the body of God that was nailed to the cross. But God's existence - the Son's existence - is not limited to that body. In this respect, the use of "image" in Genesis is very beautiful for it prefigures the incarnation of the Son of God, man's second creation, at the moment of man's first creation. Very beautiful, really.

Why is it either/or? It is a flat-out deception to say that it can only be one.

As you can see from the preceding, I do not deny that it is both. The body has an essential participation in the spirit's act of imaging God. Since I did not make that point before, I can see how you drew this conclusion. If you wish to better understand find out just how the Catholic Church sees the body's place in the image of God, I recommend Christopher West's wonderfully clear, brief, and edgy book Theology of the Body for Beginners.

It is both. Man would not be man in the body of a deer, even possessing the same soul.

I would go even farther than that. I don't think a human soul could be put in a deer at all, because it is the nature of the human soul to have a certain kind of body befitting to its spiritual nature. A man's body is that, but a deer's body is not.

As to the divine image being both, it seems to me that LDS theology does teach this, but it also implies some limits on how much and in what ways the spirit does image God. Now, I am about to tread in the waters of your theology here, so please let me know if I misrepresent, misunderstand, or might more accurately state anything so that I may amend any errors. Since I desire for the sake of this conversation to accurately define the differences between our views, I will welcome any correction.

Let me list my premises:

#1 A created image is the effect of the thing that it images. A likeness is not an image if it is not caused by the original. Thus a son is in his father's image becasue his father causes the son to look like him. Two brother's are not in each other's image becasue they did not cause each other. They are both in their father's image.

#2 In LDS thinking, man's spiritual imaging of God is a likeness of shape, just as with the body: our spirit-bodies are shaped like the body of God's spirit.

#3 Man's intelligence is uncreated and self-existent. Per the King Follett Discourse: The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. ... Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it.

Would it be correct to say that since the elemental existence of intelligence is not caused by God, and since an image is always the effect of the thing that caused it, intelligence as such is not "in God's image" but is rather "like God"? I ask this because I consider intelligence to be the first faculty of spirit. Among other reasons, this is becasue our intelligence makes us able to see the consequences of our actions, thereby making moral choice possible. Such spiritual faculty is the highest part of man, the image of God in my theology, but seems to be the one aspect of human nature that is not in God's image according to yours.

Would you agree that the core difference is not a between an image in spirit vs. an image in body, but an image in spiritual faculty vs. an image in shape?

A soul like unto God's can only dwell in a body like unto God's.

If God were a material creature, that would be true.

[Sargon]

Uh-oh:

" The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Since the garments mentioned in your Exodus quotes were for the priests, it looks as though women were not allowed to wear them also. It's either a blatent contradiction, or else women did not wear garments.

Either way....

Edited to add: That quote was Deut. 22:5

You obviously are not endowed.

The priestly robes described in Deut are not the same as the coats of skin Adam and Eve wore. The priestly robes were worn on the outside, while the garments/coats of skin are worn underneath.

I won't comment much beyond that.

Sargon

[No Touch]

I will not call it a physical nothingness either. Since God reveals himself as "I AM," I will not deny being to God in any respect. I believe that there is no degree of actuality or being that matter possesses which God does not also possess except in an unlimited way, without the inherent boundaries and deficiencies (modes of non-being) inherent in material existence. For instance, God exists in space as matter does, but is not contained by space as matter is. Further, since I believe that God is the cause of matter, physical existence owes its being to Him, deriving from his supreme super-existence, which gives its own being to matter in order for matter to exist at all. "Physical nothingness" does not describe such a God nor his relation to the material world. This is not hair splitting; this is foundational to my faith.

Listen, I grew up Catholic, and while I may have been relatively ignorant of many of the intricacies of doctrine at that time, I well enough understand that idea of God as a form-less ghost, existing everywhere, and yet invisible. With that understanding, God would be here in front of me, occupying the space between my eyes and my monitor, and yet I do not see him. This God has no image, and when you creatively apply adjectives to that noun, you change the meaning of it.

[Zakuska]

Didn't jump the Gun at all Rhino. When I originally started the thread I had just got through listening to Shawn McCraney's interview with Sandra Tanner and the part where she thought the temple protestors waving around temple garments (Holy underware) was counter productive. So that phrase was in my mind but I thought to myself that people (mainly the mods) would not appreciate that so I toned it down a bit.

But here we see two instances in scripture where God "taylored" clothing for man. Once in the Garden and then he instituded "Holy Boxer shorts" for the Moses, Aaron and the Priests. It's intresting how people have the gahoona's to mock something God made. (ie instructed to have made)

You obviously are not endowed.

The priestly robes described in Deut are not the same as the coats of skin Adam and Eve wore. The priestly robes were worn on the outside, while the garments/coats of skin are worn underneath.

I won't comment much beyond that.

Sargon

You forget the linen boxer shorts worn undernieth.

[Bernard Gui]

I love this from Pilgrim's Progress:

PLIABLE. Come, neighbour Christian, since there are none but us two

here, tell me now further what the things are, and how to be enjoyed,

whither we are going.

CHRISTIAN. I can better conceive of them with my mind, than speak

of them with my tongue. God's things unspeakable: but yet, since

you are desirous to know, I will read of them in my book.

PLI. And do you think that the words of your book are certainly

true?

CHR. Yes, verily; for it was made by Him that cannot lie. [Titus

1:2]

PLI. Well said; what things are they?

CHR. There is an endless kingdom to be inhabited, and everlasting

life to be given us, that we may inhabit that kingdom for ever.

[isa. 45:17; John 10:28,29]

PLI. Well said; and what else?

CHR. There are crowns and glory to be given us, and garments that

will make us shine like the sun in the firmament of heaven. [2

Tim. 4:8; Rev. 3:4; Matt. 13:43]

Bernard

[BCSpace]

Tertullian would have rejected today's notion of the trinity so he is certainly not operating from the standpoint of 'traditional' Christianity

Tertullian was the one who coined the "three persons in one substance" formula that was so influential in the doctrine of the Trinity, so I don't think you're correct there.

It's true that Tertullian's doctrine was in between the originally taught doctrine of the Godhead and the trinity heresy. However, he certainly was no trinitarian. During his time, "substance" could mean several different things. Tertullian happened to believe the Son and Holy Spirit were distinct and lesser (subordinationism) portions of the divine substance. He believed that this substance was material. And he also believed that there was a time when the Son of Holy Spirit "began to exist".

So the real question nonLDS Christians have to answer before they can even begin to attempt a refutation about any of these doctrines is why didn't anyone at all preach the Nicene orthodoxy before the 4th century? Especially since they claim such is taught in the Bible when infact it's not taught anywhere in the Bible?

[Tanyan]

My contribution to this- http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/GodAndC.../TriuneGod.html

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

[juliann]

Apparently Tertullian believed that man is in God's image. The question is, did she destroy God's image, or did she destroy man? It seems to suggest that God's image was not destroyed, but that man was destroyed.

Sargon

The science of the day held that women were incomplete men. Men were further developed in the womb. To be part of the divine required completion, i.e., becoming male. Score another one for the science worshippers.

Garment imagery is everywhere...probably one of the most common motifs. It can be disputed that it means anything but then it puts the disputer in the same position they got themselves in with theosis. They may not like our version but at least we have a version.

[Loquacious Lurker]

You obviously are not endowed.

How could you tell? j/k

The priestly robes described in Deut are not the same as the coats of skin Adam and Eve wore.

Yes, I know the difference. I wasn't talking about temple clothes.

The priestly robes were worn on the outside, while the garments/coats of skin are worn underneath.

There's no evidence at all that the skins Adam and Eve wore were underneath any other clothes, so how could they then be garments in any LDS sense at all? But that is beside the point. I was referring to the linen boxer shorts the priests wore, not their outward garment, as Zakuska noted. The priests wearing a linen undergarment that the women also wore would violate the law from Deut. 22 which said that men and women were not to wear similar clothing. It was an abomination to the Lord.

--Now, maybe only the men wore garments, and not the women. But that doesn't seem right.

--Maybe men and women both wore garments, and violated God's other law against doing that very thing. But then that doesn't sound right, either.

--Maybe JS did not get around to fixing that verse in his translation. Seems an important point, so you'd think he would. So that doesn't sound right, either.

--Maybe the priestly garment referred to in no way matches the LDS concept of garments, since it only covered their lower body AND could not be worn by women without contradicting God's express wish for men and women to not wear the same clothes.

Of all points, that last one sounds **Goldilocks voice** just right.

[Sargon]

There's no evidence at all that the skins Adam and Eve wore were underneath any other clothes, so how could they then be garments in any LDS sense at all?

They don't need to have been worn underneath other clothes. We obviously do not wear the same thing that Adam and Eve wore. It might be rather uncomfortable in today's world to walk around wearing animal skins. What we wear however functions in much the same way that their "tunics of skins" functioned, as a covering and as a symbol of a covenant.

The priests wearing a linen undergarment that the women also wore would violate the law from Deut. 22 which said that men and women were not to wear similar clothing. It was an abomination to the Lord.

First, you are right in saying that the woman of ancient Israel were probably not allowed to wear the linen breeches, it appears to have been only a necessity for priests in preparation to perform sacred ordinances.

I don't think Zak or anyone else here would claim that modern day "garments" are meant to be exact replicas not only in style but also in purpose to those required of the priests by the Law of Moses.

However, the passage you cite does not have anything to do with this. Moses is basically warning against cross-dressing. If you want to drag that into the realm of LDS garments, I never wear my wife's garments. I only wear men's garments. They are different you know.

Sargon

[Loquacious Lurker]

However, the passage you cite does not have anything to do with this. Moses is basically warning against cross-dressing. If you want to drag that into the realm of LDS garments, I never wear my wife's garments. I only wear men's garments. They are different you know.

Sargon

(pout) How come your interpretation gets to be right, and mine isn't?

Or is this the "It means whatever I want it to mean" approach....

Ancient Jewish peoples took that verse in Deut. to mean that men and women did not wear the same kinds of clothing. End of story. If you want to stretch that other series of verses to fit around the definition of LDS garments, then it shouldn't contradict another of God's laws.

What's mentioned in Exodus basically has nothing whatsoever to do with the garment that Joseph Smith introduced for use. Yet the temple clothes are apparently taken straight from OT scripture. I remember that lesson from my seminary days. Why the disparity? That's what I'm wondering.

[Sargon]

Hi Loquacious,

Im not sure if either of us is really all that interested in this discussion anymore, but I thought Id respond to your last post anyway.

(pout) How come your interpretation gets to be right, and mine isn't?

I'm not sure I understand your interpretation. I don't understand how you can apply it to garments, but not to pants, shirts, hats, etc...

Ancient Jewish peoples took that verse in Deut. to mean that men and women did not wear the same kinds of clothing. End of story. If you want to stretch that other series of verses to fit around the definition of LDS garments, then it shouldn't contradict another of God's laws.

I think the ancient Jews would have been correct in their interpretation. Men and women have different styles of clothing appropriate to their sex, and they should not cross-dress. It is simple.

As I said earlier, I don't know that the series of verses describing linen breeches is used as a proof-text for LDS garments. It doesn't mention the shirt top, and their function appears to be different. But they are brought up because it is an instance in which the Lord commands unique undergarments to be worn.

What's mentioned in Exodus basically has nothing whatsoever to do with the garment that Joseph Smith introduced for use. Yet the temple clothes are apparently taken straight from OT scripture. I remember that lesson from my seminary days. Why the disparity? That's what I'm wondering.

LDS garments are representative of the garments placed on Adam and Eve, not of the linen breeches of the Mosaic priests. It could be that the linen breeches are also representative of Adam and Eve's skins, but that would be speculation on my part.

The verses mentioned by Zakuska involving linen breeches worn by priests are representative of an ancient custom that resembles our modern one. It is not a mirror of the other, and they are only awkwardly linked, but they are linked.

Sargon

[soren]

Listen, I grew up Catholic, and while I may have been relatively ignorant of many of the intricacies of doctrine at that time, I well enough understand that idea of God as a form-less ghost, existing everywhere, and yet invisible.

Thank you for bringing up that you were once a Catholic, and also for saying that you did not know your faith well at that time. To be honest, I think it is a grave fault in todayâ??s Catholic Church, at least in the U.S., that it has allowed the theological instruction of its members to decline. I have lectured at parishes on the subject of the Trinity and have found masses of people yet to be introduced to a meaningful understanding of their own Churchâ??s central doctrine. To some extent that is because it really is difficult theology, but it is not so far beyond the grasp of people that better instruction could not happen. By contrast, the LDS Church teaches its members to take their doctrines seriously. I believe the earnestness with which Latter-day Saints promote the instruction of their members attracts people who are looking for substance in their beliefs and is a major cause of LDS growth. I think Catholics in particular are drawn to the LDS Church for this reason, because lacking real instruction, they do not hear the music of their own religion. I do not blame them for this!

With that understanding, God would be here in front of me, occupying the space between my eyes and my monitor, and yet I do not see him. This God has no image, and when you creatively apply adjectives to that noun, you change the meaning of it.

I have applied an adjective, but have I done so creatively? To add a word is not necessarily to add a concept. The way to tell what a word means is how it is used, and â??imageâ? is used in scripture in ways that do warrant a spiritual interpretation. Paul speaks of â??the image of the invisible God.â? That in itself shows that an image may be of an invisible thing, though the image itself may yet be visible. (And note that he does not say God is â??unseen,â? but more forcibly, â??invisible.â?) In Genesis, when God creates Man, he names the distinguishing principle between man and brute as â??our own image and likeness.â? Though manâ??s body is indeed distinct from beasts, it is clear that manâ??s spiritual faculties are the underlying principle of his distinction. How does it defy credibility to see such a meaning in these contexts?

Since I must be accountable for the word I have added, let me tell you where I got that word from. In John 4:24, Christ reveals, â??God is a spirit.â? (John 4:24) Yet a man is not a spirit for Christ says, â??A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.â? (Luke 24:39) Further, the fleshly nature of man is necessary to who he is. Flesh and blood is not just something man exists in, but which belongs properly to human identity. I am not me without my body, and therefore I am not a spirit, only I have a spirit. If God is a spirit, he is not bodily and it will be another spirit that will carry his image.

I am well aware of the common LDS interpretation of this verse, which sees it as a statement about God having a spiritual part and being of a spiritual nature: â??Since I am a spirit in some way, so is God in the same way.â? While depending on very different notions of spirit, body, and self from the Catholic view, this explanation makes enough sense in light of LDS concepts that it is a reasonable alternative to the argument above.

Yet there are far more profound dimensions to this verse. In Greek, the sentence is not â??God is a spiritâ? but reads more simply as â??Spirit the God.â? In this Greek sentence structure, the placement of the predicate at the start of the sentence gives the statement a rhetorical force that emphasizes the nature and properties of the predicate, â??Spirit.â? The exclusion of a spoken verb and the mere interposition of â??theâ? between the subject and predicate convey an immediate connection of â??Godâ? and â??Spirit.â? â??Spiritâ? relates to â??Godâ? not as a part or a principal, but as an identity.

The context enlarges this meaning. Christ says, â??God is a spiritâ? as part of his answer to a question posed by the Samaritan woman: â??The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye [the Jews] say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.â? (John 4:19-23)

The woman is asking Jesus to weigh in on a debate as to where God should be worshipped, in Jerusalem or in Samaria. She expects him to defend Jerusalem as the true place of worship, but Jesus takes neither side, revealing instead that the worship of God is not restrained by place. The Father will be worshipped in spirit and in truth, even without Jerusalem or Samaria. Consider the phrase â??In spirit and in truth.â? Truth is not limited by place. Truth is one thing, always and everywhere. That is its magnificence, and it is the reason Truth can be known and encountered in all locations. Truth is completely everywhere. So likewise is spirit, and Jesus says, â??Spirit the God, and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth.â?

The key to seeing what is happening in the verse â?? and it may take long pondering to grasp the weight of it â?? is that â??God is a spiritâ? does not only answer the question â??What is God?â? It also answers the question â??Where is God?â? For the two are inseparable. The womanâ??s initial question comes about by a misunderstanding of Godâ??s nature, whence Christ replies, â??Ye worship ye know not what.â? Then by telling the woman what God is, Christ tells her where God is, and thereby establishes both the means whereby and the basis upon which God is to be worshipped. In light of this, how appropriate it was of Solomon, while building the temple in Jerusalem to declare: â??And the house which I build is great: for great is our God above all gods. But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? (2 Chron 2:5-6)

So how does this bear on the image of God? If we believe that God is a spirit, we can say, without adding any new words, that the image of God is the image of a spirit. If we then move along to the next question, â??What is the image of a spirit?â? the answer is plain as day: another spirit. No extra adjectives are needed.