One God, Three Beings

[soren]

Hi Soren,

That is a reasonable response.

However, Joseph also said that:

The revelations that he taught say this:

So, possibly Joseph would admit that the "three gods terminology" he used was simply to make a point that they were separate beings-- not that they were not ONE God.

Which is why I said it is ok for LDS today to use different language. As in other theologies, "God" can have more than one sense in Mormonism, so I can allow room for interpretation. But do bear in mind that in this quote, Smith is using the three members of the Godhead as a precedent to support his own doctrine of plurality of Gods, a doctrine which takes "God" in the strict sense. If Smith were using the words equivocally, it would not serve this purpose very well. So the context suggests a literal three-God scheme.

The idea of one thing being made up of parts is an extremely common idea-- why could it not also apply to the understanding of God?

Because a Being composed of parts is not as perfectly one as a being who isn't. See also my answers to Steve Ray above.

There is ONE US Senate; but there are 100 Senators in it. Right? There is ONE God; but there are three separate personages in the Godhead that created this earth. Right again? A child could understand this.

Many of the greatest minds of Christianity have admitted that they really never understood the trinity inverse version of it.

Wow. I understand the Trinity and have taught it to children. There is a point where my knowledge ceases because God is bigger than my mind, but I understand the doctrine.

I have a related question from a previous thread that no non-Mormon answered:

How could we be in the IMAGE of God, if God is IMMATERIAL?

I could not find one reference in the Bible of an "image" of something immaterial. The very idea makes reason stare.

Richard

Among immaterial things, image is said of...

Righteousness

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Rom 8:29)

Knowledge

And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: (Col 3:10)

Law

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (Heb. 10:1)

Existence Simply

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his personâ?¦ (Heb. 1:3) {Note that â??personâ? translates a Greek hypostasis, which in Biblical times meant about the same thing as ousia at the Council of Nicea, referring to underlying reality.}

[erichard]

....Among immaterial things, image is said of...

...

Righteousness

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Rom 8:29)

The Son was not immaterial as I understand him.

Knowledge

And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: (Col 3:10)

He that created man is not immaterial as I understand him.

Law

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (Heb. 10:1)

The "things" it is talking about, as I understand it, are the works done by the Levitical Priests. These works were not immaterial.

Existence Simply

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his personâ?¦ (Heb. 1:3) {Note that â??personâ? translates a Greek hypostasis, which in Biblical times meant about the same thing as ousia at the Council of Nicea, referring to underlying reality.}

I will have to research this one.

I remain unconvinced. Good try though.

Richard

[erichard]

...Because a Being composed of parts is not as perfectly one as a being who isn't. ...

The logic being: idealistically the perfect God should be without parts --- therefore He IS without parts.

But truth does not always work that way. Right? The truth is not always what we idealistically want it to be.

Richard

[Dale]

Are the three literally aware of eachother like human person's are? Or are the three non-person's unaware of eachother as they arn't defineable as three smart person's? Is God the only true intelligence within God you could have a conversation with outside of Jesus the man?

[soren]

Righteousness

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Rom 8:29)

The Son was not immaterial as I understand him.

Knowledge

And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: (Col 3:10)

He that created man is not immaterial as I understand him.

Law

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (Heb. 10:1)

The "things" it is talking about, as I understand it, are the works done by the Levitical Priests. These works were not immaterial.

Existence Simply

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his personâ?¦ (Heb. 1:3) {Note that â??personâ? translates a Greek hypostasis, which in Biblical times meant about the same thing as ousia at the Council of Nicea, referring to underlying reality.}

I will have to research this one.

I remain unconvinced. Good try though.

Richard

If you think this is an answer, you must have missed my point. That may be my fault since I did string my verses in proof-text manner. Letâ??s make sure the issue is clear: it isnâ??t about whether â??imageâ? happens to be of a physical object, but that the likeness spoken of as â??imageâ? in these verses is not a similarity in shape. The Mormon claim that God must be material because man is made in his image depends upon two presuppositions both of which must be proven for the conclusion to be proven:

1. That image is shape

2. That only physical objects have shapes

Of these two premises, the second is not in question, but the first cannot be asserted as an absolute if the verses I have given are taken into account. In the verse from Romans, for instance, the image of Christ Paul speaks of is the righteousness of his followers attained through justification in Christ. Try reading the verse in context interpreting image as â??physical shape.â? It makes no sense and has no relevance in the context. The same kind of thing is even more obvious in Colossians 3:10, since the â??imageâ? here is a renewal in knowledge. If knowledge is an â??image,â? do you conclude that knowledge is a physical shape? In Hebrews 10:1, the likeness of the old law is a similarity in action, as the ritual of the old sacrifices followed a pattern of action perfectly expressed in Christâ??s sacrifice. I doubt you will argue that the outer tent of the old law physically resembled the tent of Christâ??s resurrected body in the new.

All of these things are called â??imageâ? yet none of them is in reference to shape, and that is all I need to show to justify a different interpretation of â??imageâ? as a reasonable, if not proven, possibility. How do I interpret image? A thing to be in the image of another, is it possesses in itself some quality or form received from the other by way of likeness. Since man has a spiritual soul created by God who is a spirit, then man is in Godâ??s likeness. Since the soul is greater than the body, this interpretation does not avoid the divine image, but in fact takes a higher view of it. Can you propose a definition of image that can accommodate all of these verses while excluding my reading of imago dei?