In The Image Of God

[Anakin7]

In John 4 Jesus is talking with a samaritan woman who wants to talk about "where' to worship God where as Jesus emphaticaly talks with her about a much more important topic, 'how' to worship GOD, in spirit and in truth. No mention of GOD's ontiological/metaphysical nature is addressed to this samaritan woman in this text. Sorry cool but your adding to the text something that is not there.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Anakin7]

I believe you did add words to the Bible. See below:

No, the Bible does not say "God is a spirit," the Bible says "God is spirit." There is no indefinite article in Greek, so you have to let the context determine if it is the adjectival or concrete sense of the term. There's no reason to conclude it is the concrete sense in John (he never uses the term that way; it's always "the Spirit" or the abstract "spirit"). I would also point you to John 3:6, which states "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The sense is indistinguishable from John 4:24. Those who are born of the Spirit are spirit. God is spirit. John 6:63 says even Jesus' words are spirit! Anyway, I would think those who are born of the spirit have flesh and bone, flatly undermining the notion that John 4:24 indicates God cannot have flesh and bone.

Cool you did not address this directly, try again.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[cksalmon]

Coolrok7

I don't wish to provide fodder to the Mormon cannon, but one should pay close attention to how צלם is used here. Despite what I've said in response to Mak, no, actually because of it, I think we should pay special attention to the usage here.

That a physical form is in view, I believe, is best established via the relevant lexicography. Even while, at the same time, I discount mak's subsequent reductionistic use of it to buttress his own tradition's claims.

WARNING: He may make lots of noise about how his view just is the scholarly consensus position of all the other naturalistic OT scholars he admires in his field.

But, we should answer the question assumed.

cks

[maklelan]

Coolrok7

I don't wish to provide fodder to the Mormon cannon, but one should pay close attention to how צלם is used here. Despite what I've said in response to Mak, no, actually because of it, I think we should pay special attention to the usage here.

That a physical form is in view, I believe, is best established via the relevant lexicography. Even while, at the same time, I discount mak's subsequent reductionistic use of it to buttress his own tradition's claims.

WARNING: He may make lots of noise about how his view just is the scholarly consensus position of all the other naturalistic OT scholars he admires in his field.

But, we should answer the question assumed.

cks

None of what I've said here has anything to do with my tradition's claims. I am approaching this from a purely academic point of view.

[cksalmon]

None of what I've said here has anything to do with my tradition's claims. I am approaching this from a purely academic point of view.

I don't doubt your sincerity, mak. Let me put it like this: I believe that you believe that yours is a completely objective, "academic" (read: unbiased) interpretation--one that is wholly independent of and that rises above any of your own personal presuppositions, traditions, or religious commitments. And it also happens to be the interpretation favored by lots of Latter-day Saints.

[maklelan]

I don't doubt your sincerity, mak. Let me put it like this: I believe that you believe that yours is a completely objective, "academic" (read: unbiased) interpretation--one that is wholly independent of and that rises above any of your own personal presuppositions, traditions, or religious commitments. And it also happens to be the interpretation favored by lots of Latter-day Saints.

My academic interpretations also favor understanding the Torah as an 8th to 5th century composition, the Exodus as fiction, Yahweh as an Edomite deity imported into Israel, and a number of other things that aren't favored by Latter-day Saints. If you read my scholarship you'll find far more interpretations in it that conflict with LDS ideology than that agree with it. The occasional overlap of Latter-day Saint ideology with academic perspectives in no way indicates anything related to religious ideology influences my scholarship. Again, I am approaching this from a purely academic perspective, meaning my conclusions will derive exclusively from academic methodologies, whether they agree with LDS ideologies or not, and usually they do not.

[Next Year Here]

In another thread, an evangelical Protestant friend said,

Could someone please explain what it means that we are "in the image of God spiritually speaking?"

Thanks.

Bernard

I take it that you are referring to the creation of Adam and Eve. There are key points to keep in mind to understand fully

what was going on at the time. God created both male and female and gave them a world and commanded them to multiply and

replenish it and of which they finished all the host thereof before they were put into the Garden of Eden.

So.

They were resurrected and glorified beings in the same image and likeness of God...celestial. A married couple receiving their exaltation.

That they were never given to each other in marriage yet commanded to multiply proves that they had been married before they were created/resurrected.

How is this not good LDS doctrine? Some might bristle at exaltation not being a realization of absolute Godhood.

[cksalmon]

My academic interpretations also favor understanding the Torah as an 8th to 5th century composition, the Exodus as fiction, Yahweh as an Edomite deity imported into Israel, and a number of other things that aren't favored by Latter-day Saints. If you read my scholarship you'll find far more interpretations in it that conflict with LDS ideology than that agree with it. The occasional overlap of Latter-day Saint ideology with academic perspectives in no way indicates anything related to religious ideology influences my scholarship. Again, I am approaching this from a purely academic perspective, meaning my conclusions will derive exclusively from academic methodologies, whether they agree with LDS ideologies or not, and usually they do not.

Well, I do appreciate your putting it rather more indelicately than I would have done for you. I'll certainly take you at your word in this instance, though, mak.

Your conflation of "academic" scholarship with what is indistinguishable from "unbelieving" scholarship is striking, to be sure--as if there were some singular "academic methodology" that necessitates a near wholesale rejection of the truth claims inherent in the OT biblical narrative.

I also realize that many Latter-day Saints (far too many, in my opinion) are frankly unperturbed when the scholarship of certain Latter-day Saints like yourself (not to be confused with specifically-LDS scholarship) is utterly antithetical to the traditional truth claims of Mormonism regarding the Bible. As you say, your conclusions more often than not go squarely against traditional Mormon beliefs. Doesn't seem to bother most of the commenters, here, though.

You too casually assume that your "purely academic perspective" deriving "exclusively from [secular] academic methodologies" is, by virtue of its frank irreligiousness, its commitment to eschewing religious claims, consequently unbiased and objective. Perhaps I was giving you too much credit. You seem to assume that the interpretations delivered by reference to the the tenets of unbelieving, non-religious scholarship are thus unbiased.

Question: Does your scholarship also lead you to conclude that BoM is a literary artifact utterly unknown to history until it was composed in the 19th C (excluding the sections that reproduce KJV)?

You see, I'm wondering what your "purely academic perspective" (meaning that your "conclusions will derive exclusively from academic methodologies") makes of that document.

Edited July 21, 2011 by cksalmon

[maklelan]

Well, I do appreciate your putting it rather more indelicately than I would have done for you. I'll certainly take you at your word in this instance, though, mak.

Your conflation of "academic" scholarship with what is indistinguishable from "unbelieving" scholarship is striking, to be sure--as if there were some singular "academic methodology" that necessitates a near wholesale rejection of the truth claims inherent in the OT biblical narrative.

Any scholarship that espouses religious truth claims from the Bible is not purely academic. Religious truth claims are not empirically verifiable or falsifiable. If you want to espouse one you have to presuppose it, and that conflicts with an exclusively academic approach.

I also realize that many Latter-day Saints (far too many, in my opinion) are frankly unperturbed when the scholarship of certain Latter-day Saints like yourself (not to be confused with specifically-LDS scholarship) is utterly antithetical to the traditional truth claims of Mormonism regarding the Bible. As you say, your conclusions more often than not go squarely against traditional Mormon beliefs. Doesn't seem to bother most of the commenters, here, though.

I can't speak for others, but I recognize that there's a big difference between a claim that is faith-based and one that is empirically based.

You too casually assume that your "purely academic perspective" deriving "exclusively from [secular] academic methodologies" is, by virtue of its frank irreligiousness, its commitment to eschewing religious claims, consequently unbiased and objective. Perhaps I was giving you too much credit. You seem to assume that the interpretations delivered by reference to the the tenets of unbelieving, non-religious scholarship are thus unbiased.

There are other biases that can influence scholarship, and I recognize that no one is completely free from bias, but nothing related to LDS ideology is influencing my scholarship.

Question: Does your scholarship also lead you to conclude that BoM is a literary artifact utterly unknown to history until it was composed in the 19th C (excluding the sections that reproduce KJV)?

I was expecting this card to be played sooner. It always gets played, though. From a purely academic point of view the book is far more easily explained as an exclusive product of 19th century thought. I have yet to run across a compositional theory that accounts for all of it, though. That's not to say there's not one, I just haven't seen one yet. Of course, the Book of Mormon isn't my professional field, and I've done little with it from an academic point of view.

You see, I'm wondering what your "purely academic perspective" (meaning that your "conclusions will derive exclusively from academic methodologies") makes of that document.

The few things I've treated from a purely academic perspective have resulted in exclusively naturalistic explanations.

[cksalmon]

I was expecting this card to be played sooner. It always gets played, though.

Goodness. Previously, I could only hope (but apparently was correct) that you were so expecting. So, kudos to me for assuming the role of Captain Obvious, I suppose. It's an issue of consistency, mak. It doesn't come out of left field.

From a purely academic point of view the book is far more easily explained as an exclusive product of 19th century thought.

Right. I suppose.

Again, you equate whatever you appear to term "academic" with "unbiased," which is, in this discussion, a fatal category error, to be sure, but no matter. (Is introductory logic not required for a Masters degree at Oxford?)

I have yet to run across a compositional theory that accounts for all of it, though. That's not to say there's not one, I just haven't seen one yet. Of course, the Book of Mormon isn't my professional field, and I've done little with it from an academic point of view.

Okay. The question is not whether you've yet to come across a compositional theory that accounts for it all. And, the question is certainly not whether you've addressed the historicity of BoM in your professional endeavors.

To repeat: The question is what your "purely academic perspective" (meaning that your "conclusions will derive exclusively from academic methodologies") makes of BoM.

The few things I've treated from a purely academic perspective have resulted in exclusively naturalistic explanations.

Fair enough. I am being uncharitable, then, in assuming that, from your purely "academic" perspective, BoM is the result of exclusively naturalistic events?

[maklelan]

Goodness. Previously, I could only hope (but apparently was correct) that you were so expecting. So, kudos to me for assuming the role of Captain Obvious, I suppose. It's an issue of consistency, mak. It doesn't come out of left field.

But inconsistency always seems to be presupposed, to the degree that many scoff at the notion that I apply my methodologies consistently, and I find that a bit inconsiderate. It's always a "Gotcha!" kinda question, as if they imagine Latter-day Saint scholars have never realized that the sword cuts both ways.

Right. I suppose.

Again, you equate whatever you appear to term "academic" with "unbiased," which is, in this discussion, a fatal category error, to be sure, but no matter. (Is introductory logic not required for a Masters degree at Oxford?)

No, not unbiased, but uninfluenced by religious dogmas, which was you concern.

Okay. The question is not whether you've yet to come across a compositional theory that accounts for it all. And, the question is certainly not whether you've addressed the historicity of BoM in your professional endeavors.

To repeat: The question is what your "purely academic perspective" (meaning that your "conclusions will derive exclusively from academic methodologies") makes of BoM.

I believe I answered this question.

Fair enough. I am being uncharitable, then, in assuming that, from your purely "academic" perspective, BoM is the result of exclusively naturalistic events?

Not at all. It's the only possible conclusion from a perspective that precludes the supernatural.

[cksalmon]

It's the only possible conclusion from a perspective that precludes the supernatural.

Thank you, mak.

[coolrok7]

Anakin, you had referred to John 4 in making your accusation:

In John 4 Jesus is talking with a samaritan woman who wants to talk about "where' to worship God where as Jesus emphaticaly talks with her about a much more important topic, 'how' to worship GOD, in spirit and in truth. No mention of GOD's ontiological/metaphysical nature is addressed to this samaritan woman in this text. Sorry cool but your adding to the text something that is not there.

Samaritans were despised by the Jews. Jesus went out of the way on His journey to Galilee go through where He did and in doing so met up with the woman at Jacob’s well (in conjunction, the parable of the Good Samaritan is applicable):

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Go, and do thou likewise. (Luke 10:25-37)

Even before your above statement, I had already addressed the issue, that I added words to the Bible. That was a false accusation as I was quoting the KJV, the English translation preferred by Mormon Church leadership.

Jesus had stated the following post His resurrection when He was appearing to the disciples:

“for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have”

This is descriptive of us as human beings in the distinctive between the physical and spiritual as spirits don’t have flesh and bone (and blood in the case of one who has not died yet) as it is acquired in human conception and are therefore not physical in the sense that we understand physical and are physical beings.

Adam didn’t come out of a womb and Eve was formed from a part of Adam. After this, children were then born (after the fall but could have been born before the fall which Mormonism contradicts with its teaching of Mormon doctrine). Jesus became flesh. The Father did not.

So the statement that “God is a spirit” or “God is spirit” in relation to the other statements of Jesus is the point I’m focusing on, not the condition of the person doing the worshipping as that is a given to me that a person worshipping God is both a physical/spiritual composite human being because that is the nature of our conception in the womb of our mothers.

The underlying theme I had been referring to here is on the creation of man at the beginning, and the idea of being created in God’s image. My point has always been it’s the spiritual image of God that we are made after as God is not a physical being in essence (not the physical in the mirror analogy I had used).

The dialogue in John 4 wasn’t a lesson in the nature of God so much in that the statement, God is (a) spirit”, was in passing, a part of the conversation. Jesus was responding to her reference to the location of the mountain in reference to worship in the context of her forefathers as part of their history:

Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. . . .Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye 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. (John 4:5-7, 9-22)

The focus of Jesus was on the Samaritan woman herself and the context of the relations between the Jews and Samaritans and the significance of the Old Testament context of the place they were at (Jacobs well).

Whenever I see a painting supposedly of Heavenly Father and Jesus appearing to Joseph Smith, the images portrayed are always the same image as in a mirror (spiritual genetics I suppose?)