Lds Apologetics And The Early Church Fathers

[MormonMason]

What does an "allegorical face" describe?

When it is the face of something that does not really have a face (such as "the face of a rock"), it can be understood as allegorical. A like situation would be a passage describing God as protecting us under the shadow of his wings. God does not have wings and the writers of several books of the Bible state that God was in form "like a human being". Therefore, the references to God's wings are allegorical. This can also be shown because it was said of the king of Assyria that he would fill the land with his wings. In that case the word "wings" is symbolical for his armies.

[MormonMason]

Who established this rule and on what authority?

Who established the rule and interpretation that all references to "face" and "parts" concerning God are allegorical, and on what authority?

[Spammer]

Who established the rule and interpretation that all references to "face" and "parts" concerning God are allegorical, and on what authority?

Precisely.

[MormonMason]

Precisely.

Except in my case I am using proper hermeneutics and exegesis. It is pretty standard to take a text literally unless the structure and usage seems to dictate otherwise. When Jesus alluded to the Father having a shape, he was serious. When God told Moses that he was about to show him his back parts, he meant it. When God told the people of Israel that Moses saw the actual form of the Lord, he meant it. The Catholic tradition, on the other hand, had to change its way of looking at the scriptures because they got rid of a corporeal God and had to allegorize everything due to conflicts rather than taking God and his prophets at their word. The Catholic tradition turned God and his prophets into liars. Hence the apostasy.

[Spammer]

During my time of Christian explorations, I interacted with and studied the work of Mormons, Evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and skeptics. All of them claimed to use proper hermeneutics and exegesis.

[MormonMason]

During my time of Christian explorations, I interacted with and studied the work of Mormons, Evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and skeptics. All of them claimed to use proper hermeneutics and exegesis.

Many members of all these groups couldn't interpret themselves out of a wet paper sack when it came right down to it. All claim it but far too many want to bend the meanings of the texts to illustrate what they want to see in the texts, by forcing centuries' later meanings and the decisions of councils onto the earlier texts, rather than letting the texts speak for themselves, insofar as that is possible. I take the texts as they are and try to find meaning that way. Where texts are difficult, it is important to look at what other authors from the same or close period of time have said or written in order to see how they use the same words and phrases, always being careful to observe and consider dialectical differences. This very often has bearing upon the meaning of the primary texts under consideration. But, to foist a fourth century or later interpretation onto a first century text, as most do, is not something I am willing to do.

Some go to a great amount of trouble to interpret away all anthropomorphic references to God. God was perfectly capable of informing us that he was incorporeal or that he has no form. Yet, not a single passage of scripture anywhere does he say anything like this. And, what the central problem is, is that there is not a single text in the Bible that states that God is bodiless or that God has no form. Try to find one (make sure to refer to the Greek and Hebrew before being misled by English translation).

By the way, "God is Spirit" is not one of them. Later interpreters falsely reinterpreted the predicate in John 4:24 to mean "God is a Spirit," which is the most gross interpretation of the meaning of the phrase. Raymond Brown pretty much had the right idea when he realized that when John said that God is x., that it most often was an expression of the God who acts and who does. God is love because he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. God is light because he gave to the world the Light of the World. God is Spirit because he gives to us the Spirit that begets us anew.

Thing is, the predicate neither identifies nor addresses composition. Anyone who interprets the Greek predicate as identifying something or as addressing the composition of a thing is by no means using proper hermeneutics or exegesis. So, when people say that John 1:1 specifically identifies the Word as the same God as the Father, they are quite mistaken. When someone claims that the Greek predicate underlying "God is Spirit" teaches that God is composed of Spirit, is a Spirit, and therefore is bodiless, that person is quite mistaken, and they are mistaken because they falsely interpret the predicate as referring to identity or to composition when the Koine Greek predicate addresses neither!

In point of fact, Jesus himself who is embodied is also referred to as the "quickening spirit" by Paul. But, he is not an unembodied spirit. Yet, there are those who use such passages to martial as proof texts that Jesus was raised as a spirit (Jehovah's Witnesses and some Evangelicals come to mind). There is a whole lot more I could write about such things but will forbear for the moment. But, I hope you get the idea from what little I have written.

Edited May 25, 2013 by MormonMason

[Calm]

he emptied himself....while also retaining his divinity (fully God and fully man)

What did he empty himself of if not divinity?

[volgadon]

I'm glad I could help. The Orthodox believe that God's energies contain "all the Father has". They are God Himself. John Meyendorff's book "St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality" is a good summary.

I like Meyendorff.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Yes. The one God in three persons resides immaterially beyond/outside time and space. The second person entered the material creation and took on matter. He became one of us. Jesus's body is therefore material. His resurrected, glorified body is also material. The matter of his body has been divinized. The Father and the Holy Spirit did not enter the material creation in this way, becoming incarnate as the Son did by taking on matter in the form of human flesh. The Son did this to heal His creation, reconcile us to the Father, and destroy death by His death. Until Pentecost, we'll sing the Paschal Troparion at the beginning of every service and at the start of our personal prayers: "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death; and upon those in the tombs bestowing life." This action of Christ becoming man opened the door to our own divinization. Our bodies, spirits, and souls will be similarly divinized (note that the ancient Christian tradition uses this tripartite division of the human person). The teaching is that divinized matter is able to transcend space and time. C.S. Lewis, a devout trinitarian, wrote an allegory that attempts to imagine what such an existence could be like. It's called "The Great Divorce". Great book.

Those who believe in the Nicene concept of The Trinity, which means that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same - three beings of one substance, they also believe in the physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ. So if Jesus really was resurrected then that means God has a physical body since Jesus has one since He is God and They are of "one substance". The Bible also teaches that the "resurrected" Christ is in "the brightness of his (God's) glory, and the express image of his person" (Hebrews 1:3).

To me it doesn't get more plain than that.

Maybe this will help:

http://farms.byu.edu...15&num=1&id=474

Edited May 25, 2013 by Hannah Rebekah

[Stone holm]

When it is the face of something that does not really have a face (such as "the face of a rock"), it can be understood as allegorical. A like situation would be a passage describing God as protecting us under the shadow of his wings. God does not have wings and the writers of several books of the Bible state that God was in form "like a human being". Therefore, the references to God's wings are allegorical. This can also be shown because it was said of the king of Assyria that he would fill the land with his wings. In that case the word "wings" is symbolical for his armies.

The face of a rock is not an allegorical phrase it is just an alternative meaning of face.

[MormonMason]

The face of a rock is not an allegorical phrase it is just an alternative meaning of face.

Perhaps I should have used the word metaphorical or hyperbolic for that example.

[volgadon]

Perhaps I should have used the word metaphorical or hyperbolic for that example.

Hyperbolic would have been utterly wrong.

[Stone holm]

Perhaps I should have used the word metaphorical or hyperbolic for that example.

Metaphorical doesn't work either, The face of the rock is the most exposed portion of the rock normally referencing a vertical direction as in the face of an open pit mine. In this case, I don't think there is even room for "symbolic" reference given the context.

[MormonMason]

Metaphorical doesn't work either, The face of the rock is the most exposed portion of the rock normally referencing a vertical direction as in the face of an open pit mine. In this case, I don't think there is even room for "symbolic" reference given the context.

Don't think in English. The Old Testament wasn't written in English. There are many elements of the Hebrew language that if translated literally would not make a whole lot of sense without some thought. For example, there is no such thing as an edge of the sword in Hebrew. It is the mouth of the sword. There are other examples of this.

Besides that, the gist of my argument stands notwithstanding. Wings cannot be taken literally with respect to God. Even discarding the rock example, the argument still very much applies to wings in spite of my imprecision of language with the English phrase. He is described as being in the form of a human being and how many humans do you know with wings? You won't find a single passage that states "and I saw the God of Israel, and his wings..." anywhere.

Spend too much time focusing on a single tree and miss the forest. Your choice. I cannot help you when you choose to strain out a gnat on the matter.

Edited May 25, 2013 by MormonMason

[Stone holm]

Don't think in English. The Old Testament wasn't written in English. There are many elements of the Hebrew language that if translated literally would not make a whole lot of sense without some thought. For example, there is no such thing as an edge of the sword in Hebrew. It is the mouth of the sword. There are other examples of this.

Besides that, the gist of my argument stands notwithstanding. Wings cannot be taken literally with respect to God. Even discarding the rock example, the argument still very much applies to wings in spite of my imprecision of language with the English phrase. He is described as being in the form of a human being and how many humans do you know with wings? You won't find a single passage that states "and I saw the God of Israel, and his wings..." anywhere.

Spend too much time focusing on a single tree and miss the forest. Your choice. I cannot help you when you choose to strain out a gnat on the matter.

Well actually some of the OT references, to us Mormon foresters are actually references to Christ, but not all.

[MormonMason]

Hyperbolic would have been utterly wrong.

Probably but Classical Hebrew does use hyperbole and hyperbolic phraseology. But you already knew that.

[volgadon]

Probably but Classical Hebrew does use hyperbole and hyperbolic phraseology. But you already knew that.

Classical Hebrew uses many things, but it would be wrong to call this chiasmus, right?

[Stone holm]

Probably but Classical Hebrew does use hyperbole and hyperbolic phraseology. But you already knew that.

How would this be hyperbolic?

[MormonMason]

How would this be hyperbolic?

I am having issues of my own right now. I am having difficulty and have already stated that I could have used a better term but the term itself escapes me. Chalk it up to aging. You and Volg focusing on this does not take away from the whole of my argument, which still stands. I have already withdrawn that part of the argument until my mind can come up with the proper term for that and a decent example. But, it still does not really take away from the argument dealing with wings in the case of God. It seems like you and Volg are making me and this one point of what I said above the entire issue. It isn't. I am having difficulty at the present moment that I should not be having, but I am. Satisfied???

[Stone holm]

Don't think in English. The Old Testament wasn't written in English. There are many elements of the Hebrew language that if translated literally would not make a whole lot of sense without some thought. For example, there is no such thing as an edge of the sword in Hebrew. It is the mouth of the sword. There are other examples of this.

Besides that, the gist of my argument stands notwithstanding. Wings cannot be taken literally with respect to God. Even discarding the rock example, the argument still very much applies to wings in spite of my imprecision of language with the English phrase. He is described as being in the form of a human being and how many humans do you know with wings? You won't find a single passage that states "and I saw the God of Israel, and his wings..." anywhere.

Spend too much time focusing on a single tree and miss the forest. Your choice. I cannot help you when you choose to strain out a gnat on the matter.

I always think in English, I am American that is what we do. As to wings, true wings are used occasionally to represent power, means of transport, etc when ascribed to things known to not have actual wings. However, not sure that is helpful when the subject is describing something not generally known.

[volgadon]

I am having issues of my own right now. I am having difficulty and have already stated that I could have used a better term but the term itself escapes me. Chalk it up to aging. You and Volg focusing on this does not take away from the whole of my argument, which still stands. I have already withdrawn that part of the argument until my mind can come up with the proper term for that and a decent example. But, it still does not really take away from the argument dealing with wings in the case of God. It seems like you and Volg are making me and this one point of what I said above the entire issue. It isn't. I am having difficulty at the present moment that I should not be having, but I am. Satisfied???

I have no issue with your main point, I was trying to be helpful and point out that this cannot be considered hyperbole in any way, shape or form, even if Classical Hebrew uses it for other things. That word would only serve to obscure your point.

[MormonMason]

I always think in English, I am American that is what we do. As to wings, true wings are used occasionally to represent power, means of transport, etc when ascribed to things known to not have actual wings. However, not sure that is helpful when the subject is describing something not generally known.

My wife hates it because I don't tend to think that way anymore. She sometimes thinks of me as an "alien" of some kind. In any case, I know about the symbolism of metaphoric wings as well as the allegorical nature of some sentences using wings. If something is not generally well known, it is very important to search the texts for any information relative to the subject. There is enough information in the texts to show that early Israelites had an anthropomorphic understanding of God. Over time these references had to be interpreted away (and sometimes rewritten!) as theology changed. There is plenty of evidence of that in the ancient texts. Unfortunately, a lot of that is lost to English readers.

But, the God of Israel definitely had a corporeal form that was seen by Moses. He himself so stated to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, while standing in the cloud in his anger. (See Numbers 12:2-8 ). The English translation of that passage somewhat obscures what it was that the Lord was saying to them. Moses sees the form and shape of the Lord. The kind of seeing in that sentence is one where a person who purposefully looks in the direction of the subject and actually carries a meaning of glancing at or gazing with respect to the subject. It is more than mere seeing. Moses had no mere visions or perceptions; he actually got to see the form and shape of the Lord.

This goes along with Jesus mentioning the shape of the Father in the New Testament. God has shape and form. That shape is described by prophets as being in form like man, for man was made after the form of the Lord. That this is to be understood literally can be seen by comparing other texts in the same book where the words and phrases occur and seeing how they are used. From this it can be shown that God does not literally have wings. They are a metaphor for something else about him rather than an implication about his form. Moses never describes God a having wings. The Sun of righteousness will rise with healing in his wings, it is said (Malachi 4:2). Yet, we know that the Sun has no wings and we know that the Son has no wings. One cannot use passages with symbolic and/or metaphoric intent to debunk the corporeality of God.

Yet, that is what the early Church began to do in allegorically interpreting the plainest of scriptures concerning the nature of God as they became increasingly influenced by Greek philosophy (the very thing Paul instructed Christians to avoid (Colossians 2:8 ), and it led to full apostasy as the original doctrines of God were supplanted by the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

[MormonMason]

I have no issue with your main point, I was trying to be helpful and point out that this cannot be considered hyperbole in any way, shape or form, even if Classical Hebrew uses it for other things. That word would only serve to obscure your point.

Well, I appreciate it if you were trying to be helpful, but after Canard wrote what he did in another thread and you joined in, I thought you were just doing more of the same. Apologies for mistaking your intent.

[Stone holm]

My wife hates it because I don't tend to think that way anymore. She sometimes thinks of me as an "alien" of some kind. In any case, I know about the symbolism of metaphoric wings as well as the allegorical nature of some sentences using wings. If something is not generally well known, it is very important to search the texts for any information relative to the subject. There is enough information in the texts to show that early Israelites had an anthropomorphic understanding of God. Over time these references had to be interpreted away (and sometimes rewritten!) as theology changed. There is plenty of evidence of that in the ancient texts. Unfortunately, a lot of that is lost to English readers.

But, the God of Israel definitely had a corporeal form that was seen by Moses. He himself so stated to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, while standing in the cloud in his anger. (See Numbers 12:2-8 ). The English translation of that passage somewhat obscures what it was that the Lord was saying to them. Moses sees the form and shape of the Lord. The kind of seeing in that sentence is one where a person who purposefully looks in the direction of the subject and actually carries a meaning of glancing at or gazing with respect to the subject. It is more than mere seeing. Moses had no mere visions or perceptions; he actually got to see the form and shape of the Lord.

This goes along with Jesus mentioning the shape of the Father in the New Testament. God has shape and form. That shape is described by prophets as being in form like man, for man was made after the form of the Lord. That this is to be understood literally can be seen by comparing other texts in the same book where the words and phrases occur and seeing how they are used. From this it can be shown that God does not literally have wings. They are a metaphor for something else about him rather than an implication about his form. Moses never describes God a having wings. The Sun of righteousness will rise with healing in his wings, it is said (Malachi 4:2). Yet, we know that the Sun has no wings and we know that the Son has no wings. One cannot use passages with symbolic and/or metaphoric intent to debunk the corporeality of God.

Yet, that is what the early Church began to do in allegorically interpreting the plainest of scriptures concerning the nature of God as they became increasingly influenced by Greek philosophy (the very thing Paul instructed Christians to avoid (Colossians 2:8 ), and it led to full apostasy as the original doctrines of God were supplanted by the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

It is pretty clear that anthropomorphism was inconsistent with the Graeco-Roman intelligentsia, but I have this gut feeling that the common man always leans towards that view of the gods or god. I suspect that it is a fundamentally hard wired in truth, like a hope of a better existence after this life.

[MormonMason]

It is pretty clear that anthropomorphism was inconsistent with the Graeco-Roman intelligentsia, but I have this gut feeling that the common man always leans towards that view of the gods or god. I suspect that it is a fundamentally hard wired in truth, like a hope of a better existence after this life.

Homer and Hesiod are rife with anthropomorphism so striking that even the gods were made to have all the emotions of man and even the same kinds of debauchery. But, I will grant you that the intelligentsia tended to ignore such materials and had a more abstract view of the subject. That is what made it so infective and attractive all at once. It was easy to prefer so "lofty" thoughts of the philosophers in preference to the striking and ubiquitous anthropomorphism in the Hebrew "Old Testament" and even those of the Greek New Testament. This made allegorization methodologies of Augustine and others so necessary, resulting in the culmination of the apostasy.