god is a man

[zerinus]

hello: a serious question. where in the bom, d&c or pogp does it clearly state that god is a man?

Is a man or was a man? Those are two different questions. The scriptures teach that God is a Man:

Genesis 1

:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Moses 7

:

35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

Ether 3

:

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

D&C 130

:

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

i understand about jesus coming to be a man. what i mean is what lds calls heavenly father. where does it say he is a man ( and i assume this means man as we biologically think of it and not some special definition where we might use quotes, as with "man" ( really meaning something different than us but using the word man to show that whatever the heavenly father really is he looks like us when he appears to us ( or at least to js ),.

When we say that He is a Man, it does not mean â??nothing different from us,â? or that He is â??biologically the same as usâ?. For example, we believe that everyone will be resurrected after they die. When they are resurrected, they will still be â??men,â? but not â??biologically identicalâ? to what they were before, or that they will be â??nothing different fromâ? what they were before. Their bodies will be different, but they will still be men, and the same men that they were before.

man as god but in a lessor state. ok. in a way i can see this as sensible. if god is the creator of all things and he created then we would be lessor but not necesarily of the same "stuff"....but maybe we are made of the same "stuff" ( this is really beyond all our knowledge to actually know ). but my quetion, to keep it really simple ( i am asking a serious question and not trying to set up an arguement )....does the modern lds church believe that god is flesh and blood ( a biological being ) . . .

No, He is not biologically identical to mortal men, otherwise He would be mortal too. He is still physical, so that you could touch Him; but He is not biologically identical to us.

. . . who geographically lives someplace in this vase universe ( rather than a creator who is not actually a human like entitiy and is not really very comprehensible as with standard protestant views of god ).

He has a physical body and as such is physically located in the universe; but where or how He lives is made not known.

uhmm ! i am asking where in the basic scripture ( again, the bom, d&c and pogp ) where it is stated that god IS a man and lives on his own little planet.

Nowhere in LDS scripture does it say that.

. . . why do i keep asking for a reference to these basic scriptiures ?. i do this because when i read lds forums and anti-forums i keep seeing points made about things said or written at one time or another that are held up as some personal idea of a leader or prophet or a speculation when discussing something, etc. and that such disputed or "odd" or older ideas are not canon of the church. i would like to see where current general authority or the basic scriptures are teaching that god ( heavenly father ) is a guy who needs to wear trousers ( if hf was so inclined to do so ...just a wee bit of humour here ).

See the above quotes. He is a physical being who could wear trousers if He wanted to; but whenever He has appeared to man, He has appeared wearing a robe.

i know about the absence of blood. but still pushing at the core...why...i would like to accept the lds church but i find so many, well, "outer space" or western occult tradition ideas here and there in the history and literature or popular discussion. i would like to see that the basic canonized scripture ( without having to spend four months reading every word ) of the bible, bom, d&c and pogp, were actually devoid of the ( shall i say "fringy" ideas about god being once a man like us and sleeping with mary, and living on kolob..you know the drift here ). i would like to see that the basic scripture was "normal" although i understand not nicene is viewpoint and such. get what i am getting at without me having to type away all night ?

I gave you the main quotes earlier. If you want to be exhaustive, other examples of Godâ??s appearance to man exist in the Bible where He has appeared as a Man, such as to Moses, the seventy elders of Israel, Joshua, Isaiah, Stephan, and probably a few more that I cannot think of right now.

i surmise ( but have no way of knowing actually ) that god is light and love and maybe some other qualities i know nothing about. i get the light and love from the bible. it is enough for me. i find it disturbing that god is a man. harold pinter, the playwright, once wrote a play about a ship at sea and one of the crewman announced he was god and after a few days got everyone to accept it but then he had to use the toilet and the whole thing broke down. a pinter metaphor about religious revelation and group belief and how it can be persuasive for a time but when grounded to closely to humanity ( god on kolob ) it destructs. why cannot lds be satisfied with god as love and light if the four basic scriptures do not demand more and put aside the book of abraham and a sermon by a 3rd generation prophet or a church history chapter written one late night in nauvoo. these are not canon are they so why should the canon be so disturbed by these non-canonical musings or is EVERYTHING EVER SAID by js the holy spoken word of god forever and ever?

Do you want to know what LDS believe, and why they believe it; or do you want to tell them what they should believe? If the first, your answer was given above.

yup yup i get your point but ...but i think the old testament and parts of the new are just stories, metaphors, rumors and teaching devices... i don't accept the whole holy bible as literal fact....and i don't want to accept the lds canon that way either...

Again, if you want to know what Mormons believe and why they believe it, see above; but if you want to tell us what you think we should believe, well, that is something different. You should declare your intention clearly, so that people know how to respond.

zerinus

[TJane]

yup yup i get your point but ...but i think the old testament and parts of the new are just stories, metaphors, rumors and teaching devices... i don't accept the whole holy bible as literal fact....and i don't want to accept the lds canon that way either...

I'm curious. In the opening post, you ask:

where in the bom, d&c or pogp does it clearly state that god is a man ?

Clearly, from the posts before mine, anyone can look at scripture (any of them) and see where "clearly" it shows that Heavenly Father is a "man" based on their understanding and interpretation of said scriptures. This has been discussed before and will be discussed again here on this forum. Par for the course.

However, since you do not accept the majority of the Bible scriptures as truth and do not want to accept the LDS scriptures as truth as well, why do you ask for scriptural proof? According to what you said, most scriptures are stories, metaphors, rumors and/or teaching devices.

Why do you care what evidences and proof the LDS members use to support their belief when you don't want to believe in it as stated above?

Just wondering.

Jane

[semlogo]

A better question is where in the bible does it say God was once a man? Doesn't the bible say He has been God for all eternity and there is no other God? There are many gods but only One Creator God. God bless EVERYONE

Jesus wasn't a man?

[Doctor Steuss]

Where in scripture does it say He was once a man? There are numerous verses He speaks of Him being eternal, but not one stating He was ever a man like us.

Depends on whose scripture one uses. The Armenian Apocryphal dillies of the Eden account clearly states that G-d was once a man like us, and that it was through His own partaking of the fruit of knowledge that allowed Him to become G-d. The Zohar (I think?) says that it was through the tree that He was able to become the Creator.

Then again, it was the serpent who disclosed this information, so... *shrug*

[Lightbearer]

hello: a serious question. where in the bom, d&c or pogp does it clearly state that god is a man ?

After all is said and done the simplest answer comes from the primary song: "I am a child of God." God, angels and men are all of the same species, we are at different phases of advancement. The doctrine that God is a glorified an exalted man, is the plainest most beautiful doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you cannot accept that then there is no real reason for you to join the Church. There are many fine good religions for many people to belong to, that do not have the "pretense" or "arrogance" to think that we groveling inferior creatures could possibly presume that we could ever be greater than a mere angel strumming on a harp for eternity before a God that has no face, that can neither "see, nor hear, nor taste, nor smell." To me that concept of God is "way out there" and makes me feel that if I am wrong in my religion, so what? What difference does it make? But the truth is I know my Father lives, that we can behold His face and His form, just as Joseph Smith did in the grove of trees. All the gainsayers in spiritual babylon cannot contradict the fact. God loves us because we are created in His image and likeness and we are His beloved children. He has provided a way for us to advance and to become as He is through His only perfect Son, Jesus Christ:

(Philippians 2:5-12) "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

In addition it is promised:

(1 John 3:1-3) "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."

And also the following:

(Revelation 3:21) "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

Now how is it that we will sit with God in His throne if we are not "like Him"? He conversely is "like us" in form and image, the great difference being in His glory and perfection, of which we are striving to overcome the world through the blood of Jesus Christ and our keeping the commandments of God so that we may through His grace become like Him.

[Garden Girl]

yup yup i get your point but ...but i think the old testament and parts of the new are just stories, metaphors, rumors and teaching devices... i don't accept the whole holy bible as literal fact....and i don't want to accept the lds canon that way either...

Then don't...

But I would encourage you to study and ponder further...

Garden Girl

[kryoung1983]

I disagree, and since you are not here to debate or discuss (At least with me) I wont go into much further detail regarding context and literal vs metaphorical interpretation.

First thing you may want to consider is that Exodus was written by Jews not LDS, their understanding of the OT really is all that matters regarding what the intent is.

God is incorporeal.

In Judaism, God has no body, God is non-physical. Any mention of God's body is considered to be metaphorical. Any physical representation of God, such as the Golden Calf, is considered to be idolatry. As God has no body, He has no gender. While God is referred to in masculine terms and the Shechinah (Divine presence that fills the universe) is referred to in feminine terms, God is actually neither male nor female (From Rambams 13 principles of Jewish faith)

You have a great evening Deb.

Kindest regards,

Sentinus

Yes MODERN judaism. There is a paper written by the head lecturer at Meir Bar-Ilan University in Israel. It is titled 'The Hand of GodA chapter in Rabbinic Anthropomorphism' It is really quite good and this Jewish professor shows that the idea of cods incorporality is foreign to early judaism. I will quote a little from the ending of his paper.

"Most of all, Talmudic sources, as well as Shiur Qoma testify that Jews in the Talmudic period, just as their Biblical predecessors, did believe in anthropomorphic God. Not only that, but this belief stayed with Jews that were not influenced by philosophic rationalism. In other words although Jewish philosophers condemned an anthropomorphic God, those Jews who were not living in a 'philosophic' atmosphere continued with their ancestors' belief in an anthropomorphic God.

The evidence for the persistence of an anthropomorphic God among Jews is found in a letter of Bishop Agobard of Lyons stating that Jews in his time, the ninth century, believed in an anthropomorphic God. Some three centuries later in Egypt Maimonides wrote in his code (Teshuva 3:7): 'Five people are called heretics... and one who says that there is one God but He has a figure'. On this matter there was a dispute. R. Abraham of Posquieres in his commentary ad loc. wrote:

for what reason had he (Maimonides) called that one a heretic since greater and better people than he went on that way, according to which they had seen in the writings (apparently: the Bible), and above that, in the legends that spoil opinions.

In other words, in 12th century Provence (even) learned rabbis did not see anything wrong in believing in an anthropomorphic God. A century or so later when R. Moses of Taku, who lived in Ashkenaz (southern Germany) began a theological polemic supported by Biblical verses and Midrash, that things are to be understood simply as they are written, for example, there is an anthropomorphic God. That is to say that Jews in France, Provence and southern Germany, which means under the reign of Christians, continued to believe in an anthropomorphic God, just as their own forefathers of Biblical and Talmudic periods. Centuries later this belief was erased from the religious world of Jews in the East.

Conclusion

Ancient Jewish belief attributed to God a figure and all its parts, such as hands, fingers etc. This gigantic figure had no measure in Biblical times but was an issue of speculation in the Talmudic period when sages began to identify His precise size. The only difference between Shiur Qoma and Talmudic sources is that Shiur Qoma shows a highly systematic and more intensive calculation of God's sizes. This difference does not necessarily reflect any assumed gap in time between these sources.

In the post-Talmudic period Jews were under theological and philosophical pressure that made them reject anthropomorphic beliefs by reshaping old texts or even by not copying them. Needless to say that this polemic led to the blurring of the anthropomorphic God in Talmudic texts. However, the ancient belief did survive, mostly not under Muslim rule, in Provence, France and southern Germany. In those places many sages, and probably laymen as well, thought that there was nothing wrong in believing in an anthropomorphic God as their forefathers did."

[Sentinus]

In response to the question of the OP, there are not a few biblical passages in which Heavenly Father refers to Himself by such personal pronouns as I, Me, My or Myself, and Mine--thus bringing to mind the image of an individual, a personage, or a single being.

Other inspired writers (including Christ Jesus) have referred to Heavenly Father by such masculine pronouns as His, Him or Himself, and He--thus evoking an image of a divine Man.

And, He has been spoken of by such masculine titles or names as God (not Goddess), Lord and King(not Queen), Father (not Mother), and Husbandman; thus confirming, through consistency, a biblical portrait of God as a divine Man.

In fact, He is spoken of on several occasions as a Man:

There are also other passages in the Bible which explicitly state, or imply, that God literally has body parts much the same as those possessed by mortal man. For example, God is depicted as having a face. His face contains such distinguishable characteristics as a mouth, lips, ears, eyes, eyelids, and a nose with nostrils. He has a bosom in which resides His heart. He has back parts, loins, and shoulders. He has legs, feet, arms and hands (right and left) with palms and fingers, and a soul.

God is also depicted as performing various human-like bodily functions. The Bilbe declares that God speaks, hears, sees, smells, breaths, touches, holds, writes, wrestles, walks, stands, and sits. He uses His mind to think, reason, and judge. He uses His conscience to discern good from evil. And, He uses His heart and soul to feel emotions.

So common must the human-like or corporal view of Heavenly Father have been in olden times, that Moses was prompted to reason with certain disobedient Israelites, "there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat", thus implying that a true God, not made with men's hands, has the ability to see, hear, and eat.(De 4:28 (Rev 9:20)

The Apostle Paul verifies this by saying: "for in Him(Heavenly Father) we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of our poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, ye ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." (Ac 17:29-29)

Granted, as intimated by others earlier in this thread, these passages can be validly interpreted both literally and figuratively. We LDS tend to interpet them literally--at least as we understand the meaning of the word "Man" in God's case.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In context most understand these attributes to be metaphorical.

The nature of G-d is one of the few areas of abstract Jewish belief where there are a number of clear-cut ideas about which there is little dispute or disagreement.

G-d Exists

The fact of G-d's existence is accepted almost without question. Proof is not needed, and is rarely offered. The Torah begins by stating "In the beginning, G-d created..." It does not tell who G-d is or how He was created.

In general, Judaism views the existence of G-d as a necessary prerequisite for the existence of the universe. The existence of the universe is sufficient proof of the existence of G-d.

G-d is One

One of the primary expressions of Jewish faith, recited twice daily in prayer, is the Shema, which begins "Hear, Israel: The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd is one." This simple statement encompasses several different ideas:

There is only one G-d. No other being participated in the work of creation.

G-d is a unity. He is a single, whole, complete indivisible entity. He cannot be divided into parts or described by attributes. Any attempt to ascribe attributes to G-d is merely man's imperfect attempt to understand the infinite.

G-d is the only being to whom we should offer praise. The Shema can also be translated as "The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd alone," meaning that no other is our G-d, and we should not pray to any other.

G-d is the Creator of Everything

Everything in the universe was created by G-d and only by G-d. Judaism completely rejects the dualistic notion that evil was created by Satan or some other deity. All comes from G-d. As Isaiah said, "I am the L-rd, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the L-rd, that does all these things." (Is. 45:6-7).

G-d is Incorporeal

Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.

We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form.

G-d is Neither Male nor Female

This followed directly from the fact that G-d has no physical form. As one rabbi explained it to me, G-d has no body, no genitalia, therefore the very idea that G-d is male or female is patently absurd. We refer to G-d using masculine terms simply for convenience's sake, because Hebrew has no neutral gender; G-d is no more male than a table is.

Although we usually speak of G-d in masculine terms, there are times when we refer to G-d using feminine terms. The Shechinah, the manifestation of G-d's presence that fills the universe, is conceived of in feminine terms, and the word Shechinah is a feminine word.

Just some thoughts to consider. The apostles were of Jewish descent it would stand to reason that they may continue to communicate in similar terms. IMO when we study scriture we need to remember who is writing it and why they speak and write in the ways they have.

Regards,

Sentinus

[kryoung1983]

In context most understand these attributes to be metaphorical.

Just some thoughts to consider. The apostles were of Jewish descent it would stand to reason that they may continue to communicate in similar terms. IMO when we study scriture we need to remember who is writing it and why they speak and write in the ways they have.

Regards,

Sentinus

ONCE again this is MODERN judaism. The Jews haven't had a temple in two thousand Years, or Prophets in two thousand years. They are in a state of apostasy and I don't care what modern Jews say on the matter. Read the article. You can google it. Rabbi R. Abraham was the greatest Rabbi over northern france during maimonides time and he said to quote again, "for what reason had he (Maimonides) called that one a heretic since greater and better people than he went on that way, according to which they had seen in the writings (apparently: the Bible), and above that, in the legends that spoil opinions." So here we have one of the greatest rabbis of that time period who says that greater people then Maimonides believed just that! He didn't say he believed it, but said that many did. He didn't take a stance on the issue. He didn't know.

[Sentinus]

Yes MODERN judaism. There is a paper written by the head lecturer at Meir Bar-Ilan University in Israel. It is titled 'The Hand of GodA chapter in Rabbinic Anthropomorphism' It is really quite good and this Jewish professor shows that the idea of cods incorporality is foreign to early judaism. I will quote a little from the ending of his paper.

"Most of all, Talmudic sources, as well as Shiur Qoma testify that Jews in the Talmudic period, just as their Biblical predecessors, did believe in anthropomorphic God. Not only that, but this belief stayed with Jews that were not influenced by philosophic rationalism. In other words although Jewish philosophers condemned an anthropomorphic God, those Jews who were not living in a 'philosophic' atmosphere continued with their ancestors' belief in an anthropomorphic God.

The evidence for the persistence of an anthropomorphic God among Jews is found in a letter of Bishop Agobard of Lyons stating that Jews in his time, the ninth century, believed in an anthropomorphic God. Some three centuries later in Egypt Maimonides wrote in his code (Teshuva 3:7): 'Five people are called heretics... and one who says that there is one God but He has a figure'. On this matter there was a dispute. R. Abraham of Posquieres in his commentary ad loc. wrote:

for what reason had he (Maimonides) called that one a heretic since greater and better people than he went on that way, according to which they had seen in the writings (apparently: the Bible), and above that, in the legends that spoil opinions.

In other words, in 12th century Provence (even) learned rabbis did not see anything wrong in believing in an anthropomorphic God. A century or so later when R. Moses of Taku, who lived in Ashkenaz (southern Germany) began a theological polemic supported by Biblical verses and Midrash, that things are to be understood simply as they are written, for example, there is an anthropomorphic God. That is to say that Jews in France, Provence and southern Germany, which means under the reign of Christians, continued to believe in an anthropomorphic God, just as their own forefathers of Biblical and Talmudic periods. Centuries later this belief was erased from the religious world of Jews in the East.

Conclusion

Ancient Jewish belief attributed to God a figure and all its parts, such as hands, fingers etc. This gigantic figure had no measure in Biblical times but was an issue of speculation in the Talmudic period when sages began to identify His precise size. The only difference between Shiur Qoma and Talmudic sources is that Shiur Qoma shows a highly systematic and more intensive calculation of God's sizes. This difference does not necessarily reflect any assumed gap in time between these sources.

In the post-Talmudic period Jews were under theological and philosophical pressure that made them reject anthropomorphic beliefs by reshaping old texts or even by not copying them. Needless to say that this polemic led to the blurring of the anthropomorphic God in Talmudic texts. However, the ancient belief did survive, mostly not under Muslim rule, in Provence, France and southern Germany. In those places many sages, and probably laymen as well, thought that there was nothing wrong in believing in an anthropomorphic God as their forefathers did."

This is one mans view of the facts. I have with little effort found other Jewish Scholars who disagree adamantly with these findings. Darn, it seems that no matter what religious topic we can discuss noone can agree. I guess in the end we should constantly seek further info and seek to understand the oldest and MOST accepted interpretations, there is always going to be fringe idealists. But hey thats just my opinion, it is entirely possible that those on the fringe are right and the majority is corrupt. Who knows?

Regards,

Sentinus

[Sentinus]

ONCE again this is MODERN judaism. The Jews haven't had a temple in two thousand Years, or Prophets in two thousand years. They are in a state of apostasy and I don't care what modern Jews say on the matter. Read the article. You can google it. Rabbi R. Abraham was the greatest Rabbi over northern france during maimonides time and he said to quote again, "for what reason had he (Maimonides) called that one a heretic since greater and better people than he went on that way, according to which they had seen in the writings (apparently: the Bible), and above that, in the legends that spoil opinions." So here we have one of the greatest rabbis of that time period who says that greater people then Maimonides believed just that! He didn't say he believed it, but said that many did. He didn't take a stance on the issue. He didn't know.

You support the idea that this represents MODERN Judaism, I feel your use of this term MODERN is misleading. All Jews that exist today are MODERN JEWS, The ancient Jews are long gone. All that is left are the current Jews left to interpret their tradition best they have been taught. Modern Jewish scholars don't agree on these issues. While "Tha Hand of God " article you cited is well written and is received by some well doesn't make it right. Nor does it prove that those that disagree with Meir Bar-Ilan are right either. Your statement is to absolute IMO. A more accurate statement is that Modern Jews interpret the Ancient Jewish tradition of God to be incorpreal, while some Modern Jewish scholars disagree.

Kind regards,

Sentinus

[wenglund]

In context most understand these attributes to be metaphorical.

Whether "most" do or not (I haven't taken a survey), the context is sufficiently vague in each of the instances I had in mind to reasonably and validly be interpreted either literally or metaphorically. Again, to each their own.

Just some thoughts to consider. The apostles were of Jewish descent it would stand to reason that they may continue to communicate in similar terms. IMO when we study scriture we need to remember who is writing it and why they speak and write in the ways they have. Regards, Sentinus

I think it also helps to remember that, given the diversity of beliefs and opinions even within cultures and races, and since we can't read minds--particularly those minds that are long deceased, that "descent" isn't always the most reliable measure, especially to those of us of other descents who are looking back through the oft fragmented and subjectively interpreted prism of history.

After all, Christ was of Jewish descent, but his understanding of varous religious matters clearly departed in many significant respects from the Sanhedrin, if not the prevailing Jewish Culture. Some might even consider his movement to be "fringe". To interpret Christ's words through the lense of the Sanhedrin or Jewish tradition at the time would, in my opinion, be a mistake.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sentinus]

Whether "most" do or not (I haven't taken a survey), the context is sufficiently vague in each of the instances I had in mind to reasonably and validly be interpreted either literally or metaphorically. Again, to each their own.

I think it also helps to remember that, given the diversity of beliefs and opinions even within cultures and races, and since we can't read minds--particularly those minds that are long deceased, that "descent" isn't always the most reliable measure, especially to those of us of other descents who are looking back through the oft fragmented and subjectively interpreted prism of history.

After all, Christ was of Jewish descent, but his understanding of varous religious matters clearly departed in many significant respects from the Sanhedrin, if not the prevailing Jewish Culture. Some might even consider his movement to be "fringe". To interpret Christ's words through the lense of the Sanhedrin or Jewish tradition at the time would, in my opinion, be a mistake.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good points again, thank you. I didn't mean to imply that the Apostles were continuing in Jewish tradition (How could they?) BUT I do believe that we should use our Jewish glasses to interpret much of their manners of writing and word choice. While you and I most likely disagree on much, if our writings were analyzed 100 years from now, certain word usage would be consistent and identical in meaning.

Again thank you for your indepth and kind reply.

Regards,

Sentinus

[wenglund]

Good points again, thank you. I didn't mean to imply that the Apostles were continuing in Jewish tradition (How could they?) BUT I do believe that we should use our Jewish glasses to interpret much of their manners of writing and word choice. While you and I most likely disagree on much, if our writings were analyzed 100 years from now, certain word usage would be consistent and identical in meaning.

Again thank you for your indepth and kind reply. Regards, Sentinus

I suppose that if one presumes there to be an absense of modern revelation where God hasn't, himself, clarified prior revelations regarding his nature and perhaps provide furtherunderstanding, then I suppose that looking through the glasses of Jewish tradition may be a somewhat useful fall-back position.

However, to those of us who do believe in modern revelation, when seeking to accurately interpret the revealed word, we prefer the spiritual interpretive mechanism of modern revelation over the secular tool of looking through the glasses of Jewish tradition--though we aren't adverse to utilizing this secular tool in broadening our perspectives and deepening our insights.

But, as always, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[kryoung1983]

You support the idea that this represents MODERN Judaism, I feel your use of this term MODERN is misleading. All Jews that exist today are MODERN JEWS, The ancient Jews are long gone. All that is left are the current Jews left to interpret their tradition best they have been taught. Modern Jewish scholars don't agree on these issues. While "Tha Hand of God " article you cited is well written and is received by some well doesn't make it right. Nor does it prove that those that disagree with Meir Bar-Ilan are right either. Your statement is to absolute IMO. A more accurate statement is that Modern Jews interpret the Ancient Jewish tradition of God to be incorpreal, while some Modern Jewish scholars disagree.

Kind regards,

Sentinus

Yeah your right. I should have worded it that way. My bad.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Me thinks you take much liberty in interpretting the Biblical text.

Regards,

Sentinus

I think you dont understand a plain and simple reading of the text.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Where in scripture does it say He was once a man? There are numerous verses He speaks of Him being eternal, but not one stating He was ever a man like us.

When did being a man preclude one from being eternal? Please enlighten us.

In other words being a man doesnt make one eternal.

Are you as a person ever going to cease to exsist? No. Are you a man? Yes. So you are a man and you are never going to cease to exsist.

[Deborah]

I think you dont understand a plain and simple reading of the text.

Amen!

[PrettyNewMommy]

If you do believe in God(and love and respect him), it does not matter what any scripture says about him.IMO he is God and he is w/e he wants to be and he is w/e people think he is. I do not question anything about God, b/c any question regardless of the answer makes no difference(?-Don't know if that makes sense). I simply tell God to forgive my questions on religion and let him know I only wish to serve him, do what is right and make him happy. If he has a body or not-Does it matter?

[MatthewG]

If he has a body or not-Does it matter?

To a point I agree with your statements except this one. It matters simply because we need to understand the nature of God. He is literally our Father. He is someone who loves and cares for us, someone who wants ONLY the best for us. He is not some fictional thing floating around in the heavens. Also, knowing who God is, it allows us to know what we have the potential to be. We are not just His creations, we have the potential to be just like Him. Only our weaknesses can keep us from it.

[johnny]

MatthewG

It matters simply because we need to understand the nature of God. He is literally our Father.

Men and women are not literally the sons and daughters of heavenly parents. Every spiritual soul is created immediately by God. The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The first man, Adam, became a living soul. The first Adam had a beginning. The biblical account affirms that "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God. By calling God "Father" indicate God is our Creator.

Jesus is not our literal brother born of heavenly parents. We are Christ's brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace. The New Testament reveals that God created everything by the eternal Word, his beloved Son. In him "all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth.. . all things were created through him and for him. all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul. The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him.

Also, knowing who God is, it allows us to know what we have the potential to be. We are not just His creations, we have the potential to be just like Him.

Men do not naturally inherit divine qualities from heavenly parents. God created man to make him share in his own blessed life. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life. To become a child in relation to God we must be "born from above" or "born of God". He who believes in Christ becomes a son of God, becomes "a new creature" an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him. The new man, reborn and restored to his God by grace, says first of all, "Father!" because he has now begun to be a son. By being born to a new life we become communicants in the divine nature. By partaking of the divine nature we become a son of God, we become gods.

[Doctor Steuss]

hello: a serious question. where in the bom, d&c or pogp does it clearly state that god is a man ?

Coming back to the OP. Last night the missionaries paid me a visit, and I asked them what LDS scripture they would use (other than the Bible) for this question. They suggested D&C 130:22.

[wenglund]

If you do believe in God(and love and respect him), it does not matter what any scripture says about him.IMO he is God and he is w/e he wants to be and he is w/e people think he is. I do not question anything about God, b/c any question regardless of the answer makes no difference(?-Don't know if that makes sense). I simply tell God to forgive my questions on religion and let him know I only wish to serve him, do what is right and make him happy. If he has a body or not-Does it matter?

I think we do ourselves and our relationship with God a disservice by going to either polar extreme in relation to descerning God's nature (i.e. obsessing dogmatically or not giving it even the least thought or care). For those of us who believe the New Testament, Paul's sage advise to run no faster than we are able, and his astute recognition that we see as if through a glass darkly, should give us pause in obsessing and dogmatising. And, the fact that, as Christ says, it is life eternal to know God, should motivate us to give at least some thought and care to learning of God's nature.

At least that is how I see things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Men and women are not literally the sons and daughters of heavenly parents....

Jesus is not our literal brother born of heavenly parents....

I appreciate you sharing your personal opinion on these points, though I reasonably disagree.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MatthewG]

MatthewG

Men and women are not literally the sons and daughters of heavenly parents. Every spiritual soul is created immediately by God. The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The first man, Adam, became a living soul. The first Adam had a beginning. The biblical account affirms that "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God. By calling God "Father" indicate God is our Creator.

Jesus is not our literal brother born of heavenly parents. We are Christ's brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace. The New Testament reveals that God created everything by the eternal Word, his beloved Son. In him "all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth.. . all things were created through him and for him. all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul. The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him.

Men do not naturally inherit divine qualities from heavenly parents. God created man to make him share in his own blessed life. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life. To become a child in relation to God we must be "born from above" or "born of God". He who believes in Christ becomes a son of God, becomes "a new creature" an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him. The new man, reborn and restored to his God by grace, says first of all, "Father!" because he has now begun to be a son. By being born to a new life we become communicants in the divine nature. By partaking of the divine nature we become a son of God, we become gods.

Yawn, more Catholic I'm right, mormonism is wrong...